150 replies to this topic

[raspberry jam]

BuddhaKeks, on 19 December 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

See that's why I didn't want to continue. You claim things I said that I didn't and ignore other things entirely. Let me again tell you what I said about the Charr. They are based on mix of human cultures and I like that. That is what they are supposed to be. I would not call them caricatures but I agree with Nostrecorax' point. They are what they are supposed to be. Yes they could be more alien, but they weren't in GW1 and I don't think that would make them better. In my opinion they are fine as they are now. But if it makes you happy I will reply to your post. It wont change your views, it wont change mine, but I will do it if it makes you happy. And just for the record, I did not feel personally attacked, I'm just tired of you claiming your opinions to be something factual.



I'm still looking for a quote on the souls getting destroyed thing. I'm sure I've read it ingame somewhere, probably in Nightfall or in anything related to Dhuum. I admit that this isn't professional and I take my argument back that Shiro can never come back, as I can't proof it right now. I still think it would be boring to have him come back again. (That guy died 4 times already!)

GW1's plot was cheesy, atleast we can agree on that. Prophecies and actually every storyline of the GW universe so far wasn't the best. I personally prefer Nightfall, since it made sense in itself and had nice callbacks to the older campaigns. If anything I would like to get some story focus on Elona again in GW2, since it's the continent I have the fondest memories of.

Well I live in a city that's over 2000 years old (and was probably a settlement for much longer than that), so 200 years aren't really that much of impressing time scale for me. That aside, the Mursaat were pretty much wiped out by the titans, the few that survived were killed during the war in Kryta or went into hiding like Lazarus. The only possibility for them to come back are 2 things we learned in GW2! First of there is still the Isle of Janthir, secondly they are able to phase out of the world, as it is explained in Arah explorable path. Now you tell me how giving them a chance to come back is screwing the the old lore.

Now we have new enemies to fight, what's so bad about this? Abaddon's story is told, the Mursaat are possibly on the brink of extinction like all other elder races, except the Jotun who went full-retard. Depsite some people claim in this thread, old lore isn't abandoned, it just extended. Dragon lore is directly tied to Mursaat/Seer/Dwarven lore. Now I can see how you can get the feeling that it comes out of nowhere. But it doesn't, see Sorrow's Furnace we heard first about the Great Destoyer. What is that? Well at first nothing but an obscure reference, like most of the lore from Prophecies times. However Anet went back to this reference and made a whole new story out of it. No it was never planned from the start, but so wasn't the Battle of Jahai when we first heard about Elonians and Palawa Joko.

Another thing we agree on, Charr were generic in GW1. What I don't get is how them being the faceless villian is better than giving them an actual working civilization, which is inspired by, but not a direct copy of several human civilizations. Again, yes you can make races more alien, but you can't make all alien, and the more alien they are, the less likely it is that players can relate to them. Alien races are interesting as a side note, something your character interacts with, but not as a playable race. I'm certain that no game ever let you play a race that was 100% alien to humans. Firsty because I think it's impossible for a human writer to come up with that anyway and secondly only few people would play it. And again, this has been my point all along, despite you claiming that I changed it.

To that thing about the Jihad, first of, while muslims conquered the area to spread their religion, it was not the same as with the Charr. Charr killed their gods (or rather the humans killed them for the Charr...) and then setteled on how praying to gods makes you weak. They however did not attack the humans or anyone to spread there believe, they purely attacked other races for conquest. They also would kill a god if they had the oppurtunity. The muslims allowed other religions in there territory, atleast the abrahimic ones. Another thing that is different, in Tyria gods are real, and everyone beside the Sylvari had contact with them. In our world, that's highly debatable.

I for one enjoy non-human races for the simple reason that I am a human in real life. Games are about fulfilling your fantasies, might it be to become the winner of the super bowl or being a 2 meter tall green skinned brute. For example I love the Norn because they are free-spirited, independed, strong, attuned to nature (in my opinion atleast as much, if not more so than the Sylvari), brave, adventuress and a lot of more things I would love to be myself. Hell if I could affort it, I would just travel the world, see where people need my help and live my life as and adventure. Society however doesn't allow me to live like that, that's why I play a Norn, through this character I can have my adventure anyway. I would not play a Norn if they completly alien to my views.

Edit: Spelling

They are not opinions, they are facts. My opinions are opinions and presented as such. You can see it because I say things like "I like this" or "I think this".

Well it does seem a bit silly that a soul should die if it's killed in the afterlife. Also, the reaper of the bone pits talks about something causing spirits to be cast into the RoT. Why would that even be done instead of just killing them? On top of that, it seems to me that Shiro had a quite special... inner power. Still, sure, it would be boring to have him as the main villain. I have to agree.
I also agree that Nightfall was probably the best of the GW1 stories. EotN probably the worst.

Heh, well, 200 years might seem small compared to 2000. But consider where even your city was 200 years ago. 1812, come on... Napoleon was still alive! People rode around on horses. Electric lights were not invented yet, never mind electronics. People washed their clothes when they started to itch... mm, feel that smell. 200 years is a long time.
But giving the mursaat a chance to come back... Yes, sure, but you have to recall that they were not really villains, they just behaved as such. They manipulated the Krytans into killing off Chosen, etc., certainly villainous things, but for a good purpose. So what was the origin of the GW1 conflict?
(actual question. what was the relationship between the mursaat and the vizier of orr before the charr invasion?)

Either way, I would rather like to see the mursaat being on our side. Against the eidolons. It would be awesome.

Yes, ANet worked off the Great Destroyer mentioned in the SF quests and made the EotN story from that... But it never felt genuine. I mean, in Elona, we fought a god, but now here the dwarves are afraid of a lava dragon that looked smaller than Glint and had even more gimmicky skills than she had. it would completely seriously have made more sense if Primordius was the Great Destroyer, or maybe Abaddon or Dhuum. Hell even Maw would have been a better contender for the title.
That's not even starting to ask why the Stone Summit would want to summon a lava dragon straight into Sorrow's Furnace, of course. Sure, maybe they thought that they could somehow control it, maybe bind it inside that gigantic golem they were building.

...hey, wait, why is golems an asura thing when the dwarves obviously had the idea. Why were the dwarves killed off in favor of the rat puppets?

YES!! That's what I've been saying all along, they should have made charr a species alien to humans and they should not have let us play them. By letting us play them they pretty much have to make them human, and that means that their... charryness is lost.

Hmm... Ok first. Yes, games are there to let us experience... unreal things, get away from reality, let us live our fantasies etc. etc. That is all fine. But that doesn't mean that lore was not thrown away. I mean, you can say that it's a good thing that GW2 allows you to live a norn life (while logged in), and I agree on that, but you shouldn't use that as an argument as to why the lore is the same as in GW1... because it doesn't mean that.
Second, if you want to be the brave guy who travels the world and meet people and live an adventure every day, then do it. In pretty much every inhabited place on earth it's possible to earn enough money to feed yourself and then get a bus/train ticket out of there without even knowing the language. I lived like that for a number of years. Even though you get to see cool stuff, you also come to a point where you start to think that having a home is a really nice thing.

Edited by raspberry jam, 19 December 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[BuddhaKeks]

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

They are not opinions, they are facts. My opinions are opinions and presented as such. You can see it because I say things like "I like this" or "I think this".

Well it does seem a bit silly that a soul should die if it's killed in the afterlife. Also, the reaper of the bone pits talks about something causing spirits to be cast into the RoT. Why would that even be done instead of just killing them? On top of that, it seems to me that Shiro had a quite special... inner power. Still, sure, it would be boring to have him as the main villain. I have to agree.
I also agree that Nightfall was probably the best of the GW1 stories. EotN probably the worst.

Heh, well, 200 years might seem small compared to 2000. But consider where even your city was 200 years ago. 1812, come on... Napoleon was still alive! People rode around on horses. Electric lights were not invented yet, never mind electronics. People washed their clothes when they started to itch... mm, feel that smell. 200 years is a long time.
But giving the mursaat a chance to come back... Yes, sure, but you have to recall that they were not really villains, they just behaved as such. They manipulated the Krytans into killing off Chosen, etc., certainly villainous things, but for a good purpose. So what was the origin of the GW1 conflict?
(actual question. what was the relationship between the mursaat and the vizier of orr before the charr invasion?)

Either way, I would rather like to see the mursaat being on our side. Against the eidolons. It would be awesome.

Yes, ANet worked off the Great Destroyer mentioned in the SF quests and made the EotN story from that... But it never felt genuine. I mean, in Elona, we fought a god, but now here the dwarves are afraid of a lava dragon that looked smaller than Glint and had even more gimmicky skills than she had. it would completely seriously have made more sense if Primordius was the Great Destroyer, or maybe Abaddon or Dhuum. Hell even Maw would have been a better contender for the title.
That's not even starting to ask why the Stone Summit would want to summon a lava dragon straight into Sorrow's Furnace, of course. Sure, maybe they thought that they could somehow control it, maybe bind it inside that gigantic golem they were building.

...hey, wait, why is golems an asura thing when the dwarves obviously had the idea. Why were the dwarves killed off in favor of the rat puppets?

YES!! That's what I've been saying all along, they should have made charr a species alien to humans and they should not have let us play them. By letting us play them they pretty much have to make them human, and that means that their... charryness is lost.

Hmm... Ok first. Yes, games are there to let us experience... unreal things, get away from reality, let us live our fantasies etc. etc. That is all fine. But that doesn't mean that lore was not thrown away. I mean, you can say that it's a good thing that GW2 allows you to live a norn life (while logged in), and I agree on that, but you shouldn't use that as an argument as to why the lore is the same as in GW1... because it doesn't mean that.
Second, if you want to be the brave guy who travels the world and meet people and live an adventure every day, then do it. In pretty much every inhabited place on earth it's possible to earn enough money to feed yourself and then get a bus/train ticket out of there without even knowing the language. I lived like that for a number of years. Even though you get to see cool stuff, you also come to a point where you start to think that having a home is a really nice thing.

Well it might sound silly to you, to me it makes sense, in way that the soul's energy (and souls clearly are a form of energy in the GW universe, just play a necro if you don't believe me) can be re-used to create something else. So in broad terms, Shiro could come back, just not as Shiro, but someone else. A concept not to far away from reincarnation. And to be honest, I didn't like Shiro as a villian all that much, the concept was great and he looked cool, but his voice acting and how acted while you saw him ingame made him look like a dumb muscle in my eyes. It was always pretty obvious to me that this guy is just a puppet. And as we all know, it turned out he was.

I know where my city was 1812, occupied by that little french dude you mentioned. He used our cathedral the very heart and soul of the town as a pigpen. And no, I'm not saying this as religous person, but as someone who get's really mad if historical sights are damaged.

Regarding the Mursaat, I actually had that arguement with a guild mate before. My conclusion: The Mursaat aren't necessarily evil, but they are self-absorbed cowards. They only care about their own survival and not about anyone elses. I don't think they kept the door of Komalie closed to save Tyria but only their own hides. GW2 backs me up with showing that left the other elder races to fight for themself when the dragons awakened. In other words, I don't think they were like the Lich and wanted to rule the world, they were probably content with Kryta (for now), especially since they gaining dominance over the country was actually a coincidence (with Saul just randomly walking into them, immediately thinking they are gods, of course they used that, what an oppurtunity!). The only reason they attacked the Shiverpeaks was to get the Shining Blade, as they knew the truth about them and their rituals. So in the end they were the lesser threat, a threat nonetheless. If the game used Nightfalls writing team we could have potentially sided with them. Who knows. For the Vizier, well he seemed to know about the Mursaat (there is a slashed statue of one in his tower), I'm however not sure if they knew about him, or if they did, if they cared at all. (Just another puny human who has not yet accepted them as his gods). I'm however pretty certain that Abaddon wanted them out of they way before he was released and he knew the easiest way were the titans.

I also don't think there is much of a history between the eidolons and the Mursaat, I rather think that demons in general are immune to the spectral agony and the eidolon just happened to be the closest demon to get an infusion from.

Gameplay wise I was really disappointed by the Great Destroyer. I soloed him with heroes and henchies (I actually only had a group of 7 since I forgot to place someone in the 8th slot), and decided I just want to see what he looks like, not trying to win the fight... well I won. On the other hand I'm used to GW giving me anticlimactic boss battles. Story wise, yes he was kind of disappointing too, however it is really hard to top slaying a god. The rest of the story was quite okay in my book, with the exception of Gwen, who I think is the most horrible NPC in GW, even more so then the boring glory hog Trahearne.

I still don't see the dragon-storyline as abandoning their old lore, it's still there and as I said before, still continued. I see no reason to cry over it now, sooner or later we will get new content on Mursaat, demons and what not. It being out of focus right now doesn't mean it's gone. See Nightfall, it layed focus on demons and gods, yet the Mursaat came back for War in Kryta.

I think it's hinted that the Iron Forgeman is an Asura creation, as possible proto-types are shown in Oolas Lab. And no I don't see the Asura as replacements for the dwarves, to be honest the Charr seem much more dwarf-y to me.

Yeah, I know what you are saying, I get it, which I'm trying to convey to you for a while now. I just don't agree with it. Which is why I think a discussion is pointless. I have articulated my thoughts, and you have yours. We can go on with that, finding new words to describe the same thing over and over again, but what would we gain from that? And to make it clear one last time: No Charr are not cat faced humans, they are based on humans, but they were before and even more so in my eyes. And no I don't think that is bad, only by being relatable, they can be playable. Alien races, or species if we want to stay in the right terminology, can only work as NPCs. However the Charr were in my opinion never alien in the first place, they were just furred orcs in GW1, now they are more unique than that, ergo better. I hope I don't have to repeat myself again now.

I'm not using this as an arguement for why the lore changed, since it didn't imo, it just got richer. The Charr went through character development if you want to say so, making a generic evil race into something relatable with the goal of enrichening the experience. Before we had only one perspective in GW's lore. The human one. Now we have the Charr/Asura/Norn/Sylvari/Hylek/Skritt/Quaggan/Pony/Ogre/etc perspective. It's still the same game, only the eyes we used to look at it have changed. And seeing how much those races are played, I think a lot of players are glad that they could choose now. I mean just read through the suggestion forums. What do people want? More races.

Well I will one day, travel around as I want, I just can't right now, for reason I'm not going to explain. And until that day comes, playing games will satisfy my lust for adventures.

[raspberry jam]

BuddhaKeks, on 19 December 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Well it might sound silly to you, to me it makes sense, in way that the soul's energy (and souls clearly are a form of energy in the GW universe, just play a necro if you don't believe me) can be re-used to create something else. So in broad terms, Shiro could come back, just not as Shiro, but someone else. A concept not to far away from reincarnation. And to be honest, I didn't like Shiro as a villian all that much, the concept was great and he looked cool, but his voice acting and how acted while you saw him ingame made him look like a dumb muscle in my eyes. It was always pretty obvious to me that this guy is just a puppet. And as we all know, it turned out he was.

I know where my city was 1812, occupied by that little french dude you mentioned. He used our cathedral the very heart and soul of the town as a pigpen. And no, I'm not saying this as religous person, but as someone who get's really mad if historical sights are damaged.

Regarding the Mursaat, I actually had that arguement with a guild mate before. My conclusion: The Mursaat aren't necessarily evil, but they are self-absorbed cowards. They only care about their own survival and not about anyone elses. I don't think they kept the door of Komalie closed to save Tyria but only their own hides. GW2 backs me up with showing that left the other elder races to fight for themself when the dragons awakened. In other words, I don't think they were like the Lich and wanted to rule the world, they were probably content with Kryta (for now), especially since they gaining dominance over the country was actually a coincidence (with Saul just randomly walking into them, immediately thinking they are gods, of course they used that, what an oppurtunity!). The only reason they attacked the Shiverpeaks was to get the Shining Blade, as they knew the truth about them and their rituals. So in the end they were the lesser threat, a threat nonetheless. If the game used Nightfalls writing team we could have potentially sided with them. Who knows. For the Vizier, well he seemed to know about the Mursaat (there is a slashed statue of one in his tower), I'm however not sure if they knew about him, or if they did, if they cared at all. (Just another puny human who has not yet accepted them as his gods). I'm however pretty certain that Abaddon wanted them out of they way before he was released and he knew the easiest way were the titans.

I also don't think there is much of a history between the eidolons and the Mursaat, I rather think that demons in general are immune to the spectral agony and the eidolon just happened to be the closest demon to get an infusion from.

Gameplay wise I was really disappointed by the Great Destroyer. I soloed him with heroes and henchies (I actually only had a group of 7 since I forgot to place someone in the 8th slot), and decided I just want to see what he looks like, not trying to win the fight... well I won. On the other hand I'm used to GW giving me anticlimactic boss battles. Story wise, yes he was kind of disappointing too, however it is really hard to top slaying a god. The rest of the story was quite okay in my book, with the exception of Gwen, who I think is the most horrible NPC in GW, even more so then the boring glory hog Trahearne.

I still don't see the dragon-storyline as abandoning their old lore, it's still there and as I said before, still continued. I see no reason to cry over it now, sooner or later we will get new content on Mursaat, demons and what not. It being out of focus right now doesn't mean it's gone. See Nightfall, it layed focus on demons and gods, yet the Mursaat came back for War in Kryta.

I think it's hinted that the Iron Forgeman is an Asura creation, as possible proto-types are shown in Oolas Lab. And no I don't see the Asura as replacements for the dwarves, to be honest the Charr seem much more dwarf-y to me.

Yeah, I know what you are saying, I get it, which I'm trying to convey to you for a while now. I just don't agree with it. Which is why I think a discussion is pointless. I have articulated my thoughts, and you have yours. We can go on with that, finding new words to describe the same thing over and over again, but what would we gain from that? And to make it clear one last time: No Charr are not cat faced humans, they are based on humans, but they were before and even more so in my eyes. And no I don't think that is bad, only by being relatable, they can be playable. Alien races, or species if we want to stay in the right terminology, can only work as NPCs. However the Charr were in my opinion never alien in the first place, they were just furred orcs in GW1, now they are more unique than that, ergo better. I hope I don't have to repeat myself again now.

I'm not using this as an arguement for why the lore changed, since it didn't imo, it just got richer. The Charr went through character development if you want to say so, making a generic evil race into something relatable with the goal of enrichening the experience. Before we had only one perspective in GW's lore. The human one. Now we have the Charr/Asura/Norn/Sylvari/Hylek/Skritt/Quaggan/Pony/Ogre/etc perspective. It's still the same game, only the eyes we used to look at it have changed. And seeing how much those races are played, I think a lot of players are glad that they could choose now. I mean just read through the suggestion forums. What do people want? More races.

Well I will one day, travel around as I want, I just can't right now, for reason I'm not going to explain. And until that day comes, playing games will satisfy my lust for adventures.

But a necro using SR doesn't kill the soul of whoever died. That soul would be going to the underworld. Or to somewhere in the Mists, anyway. It certainly isn't dead since you get SR energy even when someone on your team dies, someone who can be rezzed... I'd rather think about the SR energy as being the energy of the bond between body and soul. Which would explain why rez signets only recharge when doing exceptional things, like killing a boss.

Don't ask me why killing a slightly stronger than average enemy would be an exceptional act.

Haha, sorry about Napoleon and the cathedral. I love history and am very sad to see damage like that as well.

I agree with you and your guildmate: the mursaat were selfish cowards, and they did what they did for their own survival. That much is true, but on the other hand... who doesn't?
But let's review here. The vizier knew something of the mursaat. They are definitely older than human civilization. During GW1, Khilbron acts for Abaddon. Who knows when that started? Supposedly he was manipulated before even starting to pursue the Flameseeker Prophecies. Khilbron might have been trying to set him free, getting the mursaat worried, and then the mursaat might've caused Saul to seek them out - and then everything was interrupted by the charr invasion, causing Khilbron to set off the Cataclysm, destroying Orr together with much of the charr army. Eh, right, but about the mursaat, I don't think they were looking to rule the world or even Kryta. I think they were happy to just hang out wherever they were (Ring of Fire?).

Hey, wait a min... If the charr were managed by the titans, and Khilbron was acting under Abaddon's command, why would he set off the Cataclysm to begin with? To feed souls to Abaddon? BTW I didn't see any charr souls down in the UW or the RoT... nor asura or norn souls... only human ones.
Maybe nonhuman souls taste bad.

Also, the seer looks suspiciously like a mursaat. Since he's helping us fight them, could it be that he's actually one of Abaddon's servants as well? Maybe a fallen mursaat, or something like that? I agree on the eidolon thing though.

Haha, I had a similar experience with the Great Destroyer... I wanted to check out the battle, see what it would be like... Oh my there's a lot of fire... Aaaaand he's dead. Cue fond flashbacks to getting absolutely ripped apart by Glint the first time I faced her.

Oh right, I almost forgot that! The mursaat came back for WiK... Kinda odd how everyone could now see them. I totally forgot about the forgeman-like prototypes in Oolas lab too. Yeah, the Stone Summit lived underground (supposedly other dwarves did as well, despite that their capital city was... a normal above-ground city... hmm), maybe they bought it from the asura? Or stole it, rather, given their attitude towards non-dwarves.

Hmm. Well sorry, you are going to have to repeat yourself. Because I don't see how "furry orcs" is any different from "catfaced humans". In a majority of settings, orcs are just stupid humans that build their society on aggression instead of the threat of aggression.
I don't think that the charr was that in GW1. But that (unlike many other things) is just my opinion.

Well and. You're also going to have to explain how making a "generic evil" race more relatable does not remove said "generic evil" characteristic.

And yes of course people want more races. Because racism (and yes, it is racism) is inherent in the human mind. They don't realize that they can play a human in the exact same way that they want to play their charr/norn/asura/sylvari character.

Anyway. Happy to hear that you will fulfil that dream one day.

[BuddhaKeks]

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

But a necro using SR doesn't kill the soul of whoever died. That soul would be going to the underworld. Or to somewhere in the Mists, anyway. It certainly isn't dead since you get SR energy even when someone on your team dies, someone who can be rezzed... I'd rather think about the SR energy as being the energy of the bond between body and soul. Which would explain why rez signets only recharge when doing exceptional things, like killing a boss.

Don't ask me why killing a slightly stronger than average enemy would be an exceptional act.

Haha, sorry about Napoleon and the cathedral. I love history and am very sad to see damage like that as well.

I agree with you and your guildmate: the mursaat were selfish cowards, and they did what they did for their own survival. That much is true, but on the other hand... who doesn't?
But let's review here. The vizier knew something of the mursaat. They are definitely older than human civilization. During GW1, Khilbron acts for Abaddon. Who knows when that started? Supposedly he was manipulated before even starting to pursue the Flameseeker Prophecies. Khilbron might have been trying to set him free, getting the mursaat worried, and then the mursaat might've caused Saul to seek them out - and then everything was interrupted by the charr invasion, causing Khilbron to set off the Cataclysm, destroying Orr together with much of the charr army. Eh, right, but about the mursaat, I don't think they were looking to rule the world or even Kryta. I think they were happy to just hang out wherever they were (Ring of Fire?).

Hey, wait a min... If the charr were managed by the titans, and Khilbron was acting under Abaddon's command, why would he set off the Cataclysm to begin with? To feed souls to Abaddon? BTW I didn't see any charr souls down in the UW or the RoT... nor asura or norn souls... only human ones.
Maybe nonhuman souls taste bad.

Also, the seer looks suspiciously like a mursaat. Since he's helping us fight them, could it be that he's actually one of Abaddon's servants as well? Maybe a fallen mursaat, or something like that? I agree on the eidolon thing though.

Haha, I had a similar experience with the Great Destroyer... I wanted to check out the battle, see what it would be like... Oh my there's a lot of fire... Aaaaand he's dead. Cue fond flashbacks to getting absolutely ripped apart by Glint the first time I faced her.

Oh right, I almost forgot that! The mursaat came back for WiK... Kinda odd how everyone could now see them. I totally forgot about the forgeman-like prototypes in Oolas lab too. Yeah, the Stone Summit lived underground (supposedly other dwarves did as well, despite that their capital city was... a normal above-ground city... hmm), maybe they bought it from the asura? Or stole it, rather, given their attitude towards non-dwarves.

Hmm. Well sorry, you are going to have to repeat yourself. Because I don't see how "furry orcs" is any different from "catfaced humans". In a majority of settings, orcs are just stupid humans that build their society on aggression instead of the threat of aggression.
I don't think that the charr was that in GW1. But that (unlike many other things) is just my opinion.

Well and. You're also going to have to explain how making a "generic evil" race more relatable does not remove said "generic evil" characteristic.

And yes of course people want more races. Because racism (and yes, it is racism) is inherent in the human mind. They don't realize that they can play a human in the exact same way that they want to play their charr/norn/asura/sylvari character.

Anyway. Happy to hear that you will fulfil that dream one day.

Oh you misunderstood me, I wasn't implying that necromancers destroy souls, I just said they can use a souls energy (probably taking some of it before releasing it to the mists). Another example of souls being used as energy source are the soul batteries at the door of Komalie, fittingly a Mursaat invention. For rez signets, the unserious explanation in my head always was, that your character becomes mopey and emo after a friend died (maybe he came back wrong?) but after slaying a giant monster together they remember the good old times again (morale boost) and everything is fine... until someone dies again.

Well we rebuild the cathedral (more than once, our enemies like to hit us were it hurts x_X). It's the biggest romanesque church that still exists and to this day the biggest building in our city (2. place is another church, build by protestants, because they were jealous of the big freakin' catholic church).

No non-humans in the RoT? Scorch Emberfire would like to have a word with you. There is more than him, I remember a quest with another charr in it. Besides, I'm not sure if all the Forgotten we meet there aren't actually souls, or at least some of them. Just a theory though. Besides that we have centaurs and dwarves in the Fissure of Woe. Probably more that doesn't come to my mind right now.

Well all we know about seers comes from seers (same problem with Glint). The Seer said she had a race, but no one can confirm, besides the dwarves and possibly the Forgotten. However GW2's Arah exploable mode (you should really play that!) has a path for seers, confirming they were a race and not just a sub-faction of Mursaat or what ever. To be honest I think all the elder races can be linked rather nicely to the 5 playables.

Humans - Forgotten: Worship the Six and were once a dominating race, later pushed back into a melting pot

Charr - Dwarves: 2 Factions in a civil war, have access to magic, they rather use blackpowder, alchemy and steam though.

Asura - Mursaat: Master of magic technology (Golems- Jade constructs/ the already mentioned soul batteries - some asura energy storage devise, I bet they have some ), but also arrogant and think of themselves as superior to everyone.

Norn - Jotun: Love a good fight and like to stay individual, though they Jotun have taken it to extreme by being xenophobic to even their own kind.

Sylvari - Seer: The most mysterious and alien, both have no real genders.


Exactly, furry orcs is as bad as cat-faced humans. That's why I think the GW1 Charr are bad. Not the GW2 Charr, which have an actual society that not "I'm bigger than you, let's make a war! Blurgh!" Okay they have shown signs of civilization even in Prophecies, but I still think GW2 handles them much better.

And when did I say they are still a generic evil race? I said they aren't anymore, which is in fact why they are better now. I blame misunderstandings on my english here, maybe I made it ambiguous.

Yeah, that is what I was talking about. Of course you could make everything human. That works, GW1 showed it. But it's a fantasy world, why don't we have a little bit fun with it? That's the point of a game after all, having fun. For many people it's simply more fun playing Charr or Asura than playing "war-hungry humans" or "very smart humans". (Even if I don't they are, they have more going on, but we had this discussion^^)

Thanks. I have a tough year behind me, I can say that, but oh well that's not the point of this thread. However if you like you can share your experiences via pm with me, I always love to hear good stories.

[Symeon]

Briar, on 11 December 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

I guess you can wait for GW3...

• The whole game will take place during the actual guild wars
  
• You will be able to visit pre-searing Ascalon and Orr before it sunk.
  
• Kryta will not be taken over by Ascalonians and as such will maintain their unique culture - facepaint and all
  
• The whole game will be a giant WvWvW with the three factions being Ascalon, Orr and Kryta
  
• Humans will be the only race allowing for in depth storytelling and a wide variety of armor skins as the devs will not have to code for other races (I mean 80% of the players rolled humans in GW2 anyway)
  
• The old skill system will be used; stapled on to GW2's action combat creating a high depth combat system
  
• Monks complete with protective spirit so that the combat itself stays organized and not zergy

/dream

Can I marry you? I can't believe we independently have the same idea for the perfect game.

I hated how the Asura, Norn and Sylvari were all conjured out of nowhere and rose to prominence while the human kingdoms of Tyria were struck by endless catastrophe. If they wanted playable races for GW2, ArenaNet needn't have looked further than those already existing in the lore, such as the Dwarves, Tengu, Centaurs, and of course the Charr. Though I would've preferred a selection of different human factions than the aforementioned new races.

ArenaNet's writers have relied far too heavily on cataclysmic events to the shape the lore: the original Cataclysm, the Searing, the Jade Wind, the defeat of Abaddon (i.e. creation of the Crystal Desert/Desolation), the rise of Zhaitan (re-emergence of Orr and widespread flooding), the awakening of the other dragons, the Foefire - the list goes on.

That and the whole elder dragon thread felt so utterly cliche following Skyrim and WoW: Cataclysm - for this I blame the arrival of Ree Soesbee. Without any connection to the lore created in the first three chapters, she was able to dream up anything she wanted, plunging the world into chaos without so much as a thought for all the civilizations she was banishing into insignificance.

[Lordkrall]

Symeon, on 19 December 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Can I marry you? I can't believe we independently have the same idea for the perfect game.

I hated how the Asura, Norn and Sylvari were all conjured out of nowhere and rose to prominence while the human kingdoms of Tyria were struck by endless catastrophe. If they wanted playable races for GW2, ArenaNet needn't have looked further than those already existing in the lore, such as the Dwarves, Tengu, Centaurs, and of course the Charr. Though I would've preferred a selection of different human factions than the aforementioned new races.

ArenaNet's writers have relied far too heavily on cataclysmic events to the shape the lore: the original Cataclysm, the Searing, the Jade Wind, the defeat of Abaddon (i.e. creation of the Crystal Desert/Desolation), the rise of Zhaitan (re-emergence of Orr and widespread flooding), the awakening of the other dragons, the Foefire - the list goes on.

That and the whole elder dragon thread felt so utterly cliche following Skyrim and WoW: Cataclysm - for this I blame the arrival of Ree Soesbee. Without any connection to the lore created in the first three chapters, she was able to dream up anything she wanted, plunging the world into chaos without so much as a thought for all the civilizations she was banishing into insignificance.

Oh you mean that "cliche" that was released before both Skyrim and WoW: Cataclysm?

The Elder Dragons where announced before release of those games and funnily enough the whole Cataclysm expansion felt like complete rip-off of the GW2 vanilla story.

[Sword Hammer Axe]

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Thank you. Yes, the distinction is important. Even more so since "race" is used in two ways in the discussion!

Yep, the neogi are slavers - extremely much so; their entire thinking is based on the concepts of slavery and ownership. in a way, they are caricatures of slave systems, but slavery is just forcible symbiosis. And many animals live in symbiotic relationships with other animals, of the same species or different, and not always voluntarily.

The mycon are, as you say, intentionally made as nonhuman as possible. Being totally incomprehensible in their reasoning (except for them wanting to kill you for not being mycon)is part of that. It does make communication impossible... But communication between humans and charr was pretty impossible during Prophecies as well. Not because the languages are different or so, but because they wanted nothing except our destruction. That was the glory of the original charr: they were the enemy, but instead of being the unwashed masses (typical orc archetype), they had stuff up their sleeve (such as the searing, sure, that magic probably came from the titans, not from the charr themselves, but it must still have been quite a surprise for Ascalon).

I absolutely think that orcs are caricatures of humans. Elves too. Settings that actually play with the elves' supposedly infinite/extremely long lives, I like that, it brings some difference to it - the Tolkien elves often don't make use of their immortality. But imagine this: you have a garden and you want to plant a tree. You have the kind of lifespan to that will ensure that the tree grows old and rots away while you didn't even age. In other words you might as well wait 50 years so that you can plant the tree at the exact right moment. When that is allowed to form the consciousness of an entire species, there is where you can begin to find out how elves would "really" be like.

Trahearne is the main hero, yes, and the PC is basically his sidekick for a quite sizeable chunk of the game. It's the Kormir incident all over again (you remember? when she stole the godhood that I earned for myself?), but worse. He gets to do all the cool stuff, and gets the lauds and celebrations even for things that the player managed do to. Plus he has that nifty sword. He is the hero and the GW2 story would be vastly improved by removing him.
The story is not engaging... I don't know. It just fails to engage. There is nothing in it that does engage. In that way it is the same as so many other game stories. I remember playing RE5 recently and I spent much more time contemplating what weapon to give to Sheva to make her act non-retarded than caring about the story which seemed to combine eugenics with bioterrorism without thinking about how the "perfect" humans would survive in a world full of all those worm creatures. Hell I didn't even think about that that would be the end result until now.

Anyway, the GW2 story being better? Maybe. The Prophecies story is kinda stupid and cheesy. But though it narratively might be the worse of the two, the GW1 story is good for the game. It gives you a rough idea of where to go and it lets you do heroic stuff. The GW2 one simply is slow in the start, boring in the middle and Trahearne in the end.

Trahearne in the end, hah, quite so. I hate that guy, beyond limit. His character design, implementation, and worst of all is probably the voice acting. I flinch when I hear his speeches. "To Arah, and victory!" isn't something that should be said as half-assed as he did it. Yet at the same time I don't mind him being the Warmarshal, because I am the commander. He's like the little figurines on top of a wedding cake, unimportant for the cake itself, yet seen as a must have for these cakes. Besides, I don't really think he hogs all the glory. Sure, he does take up a lot of space where he does absolutely nothing, but in the end I was the one to destroy Zhaitan, and I was the one hailed the most at the party in the end. But I get what you mean. He's a wart on the face of the game. Big, hairy wart.

[Nostredeus]

Ugh, sure, yup, you're clearly right the races added are JUST simplistic and unoriginal, what a waste, clearly there is nothing more to it and they should be changed to be cat people that are cannibals and speak in scratch noises/meows; what were A-net thinking... *Rolls eyes at the narrow mindedness*

[Konig Des Todes]

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

No, I disagree. Dragons isn't humans with exaggerated greed. Dragons are big and scaly and have wings. The personality of dragons, though, is in many settings basically very smart, greedy, and vain, often together with a tendency towards completely unproportional violence. That doesn't always mean that dragons have human personalities, although in some settings they do.

Isn't that argument the very same kind of argument you're holding for the charr?

The only difference is that dragons are such an overused concept that there's so many different types of what makes a dragon, while there's only one version of charr.

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Militarism is human - it might not be if there would be other sapient species, but the charr version is close to the human version.

And how would you know what militarism of other sapient species would be like?

Your argument is becoming more and more rediculous to me because it's primary basis is on the unknown of what a real non-human sapient society would function as - something none of us would know. It could be that it'd end up pretty damn close to how humanity is, be it more or less advanced/progressed, or it may be completely different. You're saying that charr feel too human and not alien enough without knowing what a non-human society would be like.

Also, I disagree on charr's aggressiveness being human-like. Maybe if all humans' aggressiveness was that of someone doped up on steroids it might be considered human-like - as that's the closest thing to general human aggression I can think of comparing charr aggressiveness to, but I still consider that a big stretch.




Regarding the matter of souls:
"Do not allow these Released Spirits to be destroyed." http://wiki.guildwar...risoned_Spirits
"You must eliminate these Wrathful Spirits before they destroy those who have come to find their rightful resting place within the Forgotten Vale." http://wiki.guildwar...rathful_Spirits
"Our souls can only be freed by destroying him." http://wiki.guildwar...wiki/Lost_Souls

Two lines about souls being destroyed from the Reapers, and I'd say they know wtf they're talking about - and if spirits could return, then not only would the Foefire not be unique (as it stands, only Foefire ghosts can return over time, not normal ghosts) but those quests would not be made to sound so urgent.

We also know via Ghosts of Ascalon novel as well as [uyrl=http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Refuse_the_King]Refuse the King[/url] that souls killed in Tyria do not return, and its said that they go on to the Mists if such happens - though what happens when they're killed in the Mists is left ambiguous, however based on dialogues, its implied that they're gone for good (though given how energy cannot be destroyed and we know that souls are made of energy (they can be used as a supplement for food, the purpose of which is energy), I'd presume that the soul's matter simply returns to the Mists' collective proto-matter and that may be what is meant with the before statements of souls killed in Tyria going to the Mists).

Regarding Abaddon and Dhuum returning:
"You see, Dhuum was not fully destroyed; Grenth was simply not powerful enough to slay him." http://wiki.guildwar..._This_Way_Comes
And nothing says Abaddon was killed; given that the death of a god leads to their power going rampant, it seems unlikely Abaddon was killed before given there was no replacement (though the gw.dat, albeit not canon, does imply his body was destroyed in the war) - and Grenth was already a half-god, so he was a different case than Kormir already, it might be that a half-god cannot fully supplant a god whereas a mortal can (this may be why the gods kept spouting that its a "choice only a mortal can make" because they learned the hard way with Dhuum that demigods cannot supplant gods fully), and besides Dhuum is basically a skeleton who's missing his legs so he's more of an undead god than a living god at this point.

So, you see, Shiro Tagachi returning for a third time is highly unlikely. If not impossible given known lore. And gods returning cannot be used as an excuse for why it is possible.

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Hey, wait a min... If the charr were managed by the titans, and Khilbron was acting under Abaddon's command, why would he set off the Cataclysm to begin with? To feed souls to Abaddon? BTW I didn't see any charr souls down in the UW or the RoT... nor asura or norn souls... only human ones.
Maybe nonhuman souls taste bad.

Also, the seer looks suspiciously like a mursaat. Since he's helping us fight them, could it be that he's actually one of Abaddon's servants as well? Maybe a fallen mursaat, or something like that? I agree on the eidolon thing though.

Given GW2's presentation of Khilbron, it seems to me that Khilbron didn't intentionally set of the Cataclysm. It really seemed like he was tricked by Terrick and not just converted by him - as Terrick claimed. So Abaddon fooled Khilbron into destroying his nation, but Khilbron still worked for the god.

And the seers look nothing like the mursaat. Their skin colors are completely different, as is their physic, and not to mention the number of limbs - remember, seers have four arms!

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

I totally forgot about the forgeman-like prototypes in Oolas lab too. Yeah, the Stone Summit lived underground (supposedly other dwarves did as well, despite that their capital city was... a normal above-ground city... hmm), maybe they bought it from the asura? Or stole it, rather, given their attitude towards non-dwarves.

I recall reading from somewhere that it's the other way around - Oola found the Iron Forgeman and made copies of it in her lab.

[draxynnic]

I think there was an interview somewhere where it's mentioned that Oola was studying the pieces of the Iron Forgeman in her lab, but that they were originally of Stone Summit manufacture.

On the topic of Janthir - a possible explanation is that the mursaat brought Saul south to their base in the Ring of Fire, sent him through a portal, and lied about the island's geographical location. Later, someone sails north and visits the island, recognises it from whatever descriptions existed of the island, and updated the map.

When it comes to races/species being nonhuman... I think you're setting the bar not only too high for what is reasonable for the type of game that ArenaNet was making, but actually higher than what is evolutionarily reasonable. In the history of evolution, we have a lot of cases where animals occupying similar ecological niches actually adopt similar behaviours and personalities despite having very different evolutionary histories. For instance, while a cat and a snake obviously can't communicate, if they could sit down and talk over a plate of mice, they'd probably find that, as solitary hunters that breed through sexual means, they'd actually have a lot in common once they got past the external appearances. Humans may be unique in being the only acknowledged sapient species, but a lot of other communal species out there also show behaviours that are remarkably human. Thus, if you have another sapient species whose society has developed under reasonably similar evolutionary pressures as humans and occupies the same evolutionary niche, it's not actually going to be all that surprising if it turns out to have a similar social structure and behaviour.

EDIT: I got called away halfway through making this post, so I didn't get Konig's post. Having seen it, I'd comment that there's another source for Khilbron being a traitor to Orr. As far as I know, nothing we've seen in GW2 contradicts this - the Orrians knew that Khilbron had a plan that would supposedly save Orr (which explains the dialogue in the Cathedral of Silence), and those few who discovered that that plan involved Abaddon did so too late and ended up in the Realm of Torment. The question definitely remains open as to whether Khilbron deliberately destroyed Orr and the charr just gave him an excuse to gather together whatever magical resources he needed without someone asking why, or whether he was genuinely trying to save Orr and was tricked.

Edited by draxynnic, 20 December 2012 - 05:10 AM.

[jayson]

　
Hopefully I have this right.

After a brutal push of the charr, Rurik comes to the conclusion that there's nothing left of his homeland to defend. He takes as many followers as he can and they move out of Ascalon and into the Shiverpeaks. They're immediately attacked by the Stone Summit. It makes sense for the heroes to take side with the Deldrimor Dwarves for two reasons. One, they were honoring the old alliances and two, it's not just the heros that we have to consider. In the grand scope of things we were there to protect caravans from the Stone Summit and any other threat that was presented to them. Tipping the scales in favor of the Deldrimor just helped to ensure the safety of the Ascalonians. We lose Rurik but finally get across the Shiverpeaks and into Kryta. We're free of the Charr threat but are now presented with new ones.

As promised by Ruriks negotiations with the Mantle earlier on, we can settle the people in Kryta but once again, they're not safe with the undead roaming all over. So we take up side with the Mantle to destroy their enemies in the interest of our own people. Then we see the true nature of the Mantle are revealed through other Krytans giving us clues. Now we're in trouble with a side of the Krytan nation. Once again we have to do what's needed to protect the people. We push forward through Kryta learning the full story of the Mantle from the Shining Blade, another faction in Kryta claiming true rulership of the lands and realise it's not Krytans or Mantle, but in fact the Mursaat who are the real threat. The same Mursaat who at one point are tied to repelling an invasion by the Charr (keeping them relevant to the story and not just an out of nowhere enemy) So we push on and sever ties with the Mantle and take up with the Shining Blade after learning the truth and lose important people to the new Krytan leadership in the process.

We ascend and then head to the Shiverpeaks once again in search of members of the rightful leadership of Kryta thereby giving Ascalonians a stronger bargaining chip when and if the leadership of the nation of Kryta changes. We find the Mantle and the Stone Summit duking it out in the mountains. We continue on and defeat what I'm assuming is either one of, if not the main leaders of the Summit thereby delivering a crippling blow to their faction. Now that Jalis has retaken his Keep with our help, his brother offers his help in return with the Mursaat. We once again press on and finish off the Mursaat who are protecting themselves and by their actions, all other nations by keeping the Titans behind the door of Komalie which brings us up to the Lich. The Lich is the one directing the undead in Kryta to acquire the Scepter of Orr. Through the scepter he controls the Titans which brings us full circle back to the Charr through the Titans and the Searing. We defeat the Titans and head home to Kryta... for now.

I think the story was fairly well told by keeping all of the factions present in the storyline and making them relevant throughout. I'm not going to say it's a masterpiece but it was good enough to keep my interest at least.

Sadly Guild Wars 2 holds no interest for me. Lore wise as soon as the Charr became the anti hero I was out. It's a tired and overused idea that ruins good characters. Add to that gameplay mechanics and I was definatley out but that's for another discussion.

[Evans]

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

There is a considerable difference between "pin point cartography" and knowing the difference between north and south. Also, not being visited by humans and it being one of the Ring of Fire islands would make sense, wouldn't it? Especially since the mursaat have a base on the Ring of Fire islands and they could have given the eye to Saul there? No of cooooourse not.

If the new races knew about the islands, they would probably not call them "Janthir" (that would be an awful coincidence), and thus the GW2 Krytans wouldn't call them that either. Which according to you cuts it down to a single possibility: That Janthir is known by name, but not location, to the Tyrian humans at the time of GW2, and that the WM claims that it's to the south while it's actually up north (maybe to deceive people that look for the place). Please remember your conclusion when we get to be able to go to Janthir and hear the explanations that no longer make sense under said conclusion.

Janthir supposedly has inhabitants, by the way, and these inhabitants supposedly have True Sight.

Sigh, I'm gonna try one more time.

It's irrelevant if they know north from south. The only living human soul that apparently has been there and claimed it's existence is Saul, a "prophet" puppet of the Mursaat who apparently spent but a little time with the Krytans after his miraculous return before being dragged off by the Mursaat. The place is referenced by a single White Mantle warrior who most likely heard of it's existence from his superiors, probably Confessor Dorian. Everything Saul has claimed could very well be a lie. That doesn't mean he didn't think it true, but no one has ever confirmed this for all we know. Heck, they lied about his death so who knows what other religious lies they came up with. The map tells us clearly that the islands are north of Kryta, ergo the Mantle warrior was misinformed, period.

The Island of Janthir is said to have inhabitants which have the gift of true sight. They are never said to be human or even friendly, in fact considering the Eye of Janthir is an artifact that can identify those capable of detecting the Mursaat, it's very much plausible the inhabitants of the Isle of Janthir were the enemies of the Mursaat. And even if it would make sense that the Eye was found on a base of the Mursaat on the Ring of Fire, it still doesn't mean that this island is truly the Island of Janthir.

Saying that it's called Janthir by humans is also false. Saul went there with the Mursaat (assuming he truly did), so either the place was already called Janthir by it's inhabitants, whatever they are, or it was named so by the Mursaat. If it was named so by it's original inhabitants, who's to say other races didn't know of it's existence and name? There's still the possibility that the place is still unknown to the world but on our map from a game mechanic perspective.

This time you banked your entire response on the idea that Saul truly went there and was not lied to by the Mursaat. You can't prove that and you can't prove the location on the map of GW1. You can however prove it's location on the map of GW2.

Considering islands don't just teleport themselves across the globe I'm done arguing about this.

[raspberry jam]

BuddhaKeks, on 19 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Oh you misunderstood me, I wasn't implying that necromancers destroy souls, I just said they can use a souls energy (probably taking some of it before releasing it to the mists). Another example of souls being used as energy source are the soul batteries at the door of Komalie, fittingly a Mursaat invention. For rez signets, the unserious explanation in my head always was, that your character becomes mopey and emo after a friend died (maybe he came back wrong?) but after slaying a giant monster together they remember the good old times again (morale boost) and everything is fine... until someone dies again.

Well we rebuild the cathedral (more than once, our enemies like to hit us were it hurts x_X). It's the biggest romanesque church that still exists and to this day the biggest building in our city (2. place is another church, build by protestants, because they were jealous of the big freakin' catholic church).

No non-humans in the RoT? Scorch Emberfire would like to have a word with you. There is more than him, I remember a quest with another charr in it. Besides, I'm not sure if all the Forgotten we meet there aren't actually souls, or at least some of them. Just a theory though. Besides that we have centaurs and dwarves in the Fissure of Woe. Probably more that doesn't come to my mind right now.

Well all we know about seers comes from seers (same problem with Glint). The Seer said she had a race, but no one can confirm, besides the dwarves and possibly the Forgotten. However GW2's Arah exploable mode (you should really play that!) has a path for seers, confirming they were a race and not just a sub-faction of Mursaat or what ever. To be honest I think all the elder races can be linked rather nicely to the 5 playables.

Humans - Forgotten: Worship the Six and were once a dominating race, later pushed back into a melting pot

Charr - Dwarves: 2 Factions in a civil war, have access to magic, they rather use blackpowder, alchemy and steam though.

Asura - Mursaat: Master of magic technology (Golems- Jade constructs/ the already mentioned soul batteries - some asura energy storage devise, I bet they have some ), but also arrogant and think of themselves as superior to everyone.

Norn - Jotun: Love a good fight and like to stay individual, though they Jotun have taken it to extreme by being xenophobic to even their own kind.

Sylvari - Seer: The most mysterious and alien, both have no real genders.


Exactly, furry orcs is as bad as cat-faced humans. That's why I think the GW1 Charr are bad. Not the GW2 Charr, which have an actual society that not "I'm bigger than you, let's make a war! Blurgh!" Okay they have shown signs of civilization even in Prophecies, but I still think GW2 handles them much better.

And when did I say they are still a generic evil race? I said they aren't anymore, which is in fact why they are better now. I blame misunderstandings on my english here, maybe I made it ambiguous.

Yeah, that is what I was talking about. Of course you could make everything human. That works, GW1 showed it. But it's a fantasy world, why don't we have a little bit fun with it? That's the point of a game after all, having fun. For many people it's simply more fun playing Charr or Asura than playing "war-hungry humans" or "very smart humans". (Even if I don't they are, they have more going on, but we had this discussion^^)

Thanks. I have a tough year behind me, I can say that, but oh well that's not the point of this thread. However if you like you can share your experiences via pm with me, I always love to hear good stories.

That would mean that souls that necromancers were near have less energy when they arrive in the mists. I find that unlikely. Also, necromancers get energy even when people die while in the mists.

Scorch Emberfire is there. Despite mentioning his soul several times, he doesn't look like this:



That doesn't mean that he isn't dead, but how come only human souls get to be transparent?

The theory that elder ra... species match up against playables is nice, but it has a couple of things unaccounted for. Mursaat doesn't seem to have gender either (there are mursaat with female names, but there is no obvious gender differences). I also don't see how having a path in Arah would make seers a separate species. They might be a separate race, though.

But the GW1 charr are not simply furry orcs. As I said, they had other things going for them, they had civilization and that civilization was not human. That you mention an "actual society" is pretty much proof of that they are more human in GW2... Do you think that an antheap is an "actual society"? It is, and it's as human as the charr were in GW1.

No, you said that they were "generic evil" in GW1, and that they became "more relatable" in GW2. Now I see that you agree that the "generic evil" part was removed in GW2, which makes them... less charr-like.

I am seriously confused by your statement: "For many people it's simply more fun playing Charr or Asura than playing 'war-hungry humans' or 'very smart humans'.".
Because these people are playing war hungry humans and very smart humans, respectively. It's just that those humans happen to look like big cats and little rat puppets.

That cathedral is awesome. And I'll send that PM later

[raspberry jam]

Konig Des Todes, on 20 December 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Isn't that argument the very same kind of argument you're holding for the charr?

The only difference is that dragons are such an overused concept that there's so many different types of what makes a dragon, while there's only one version of charr.

And how would you know what militarism of other sapient species would be like?

Your argument is becoming more and more rediculous to me because it's primary basis is on the unknown of what a real non-human sapient society would function as - something none of us would know. It could be that it'd end up pretty damn close to how humanity is, be it more or less advanced/progressed, or it may be completely different. You're saying that charr feel too human and not alien enough without knowing what a non-human society would be like.

Also, I disagree on charr's aggressiveness being human-like. Maybe if all humans' aggressiveness was that of someone doped up on steroids it might be considered human-like - as that's the closest thing to general human aggression I can think of comparing charr aggressiveness to, but I still consider that a big stretch.




Regarding the matter of souls:
"Do not allow these Released Spirits to be destroyed." http://wiki.guildwar...risoned_Spirits
"You must eliminate these Wrathful Spirits before they destroy those who have come to find their rightful resting place within the Forgotten Vale." http://wiki.guildwar...rathful_Spirits
"Our souls can only be freed by destroying him." http://wiki.guildwar...wiki/Lost_Souls

Two lines about souls being destroyed from the Reapers, and I'd say they know wtf they're talking about - and if spirits could return, then not only would the Foefire not be unique (as it stands, only Foefire ghosts can return over time, not normal ghosts) but those quests would not be made to sound so urgent.

We also know via Ghosts of Ascalon novel as well as [uyrl=http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Refuse_the_King]Refuse the King[/url] that souls killed in Tyria do not return, and its said that they go on to the Mists if such happens - though what happens when they're killed in the Mists is left ambiguous, however based on dialogues, its implied that they're gone for good (though given how energy cannot be destroyed and we know that souls are made of energy (they can be used as a supplement for food, the purpose of which is energy), I'd presume that the soul's matter simply returns to the Mists' collective proto-matter and that may be what is meant with the before statements of souls killed in Tyria going to the Mists).

Regarding Abaddon and Dhuum returning:
"You see, Dhuum was not fully destroyed; Grenth was simply not powerful enough to slay him." http://wiki.guildwar..._This_Way_Comes
And nothing says Abaddon was killed; given that the death of a god leads to their power going rampant, it seems unlikely Abaddon was killed before given there was no replacement (though the gw.dat, albeit not canon, does imply his body was destroyed in the war) - and Grenth was already a half-god, so he was a different case than Kormir already, it might be that a half-god cannot fully supplant a god whereas a mortal can (this may be why the gods kept spouting that its a "choice only a mortal can make" because they learned the hard way with Dhuum that demigods cannot supplant gods fully), and besides Dhuum is basically a skeleton who's missing his legs so he's more of an undead god than a living god at this point.

So, you see, Shiro Tagachi returning for a third time is highly unlikely. If not impossible given known lore. And gods returning cannot be used as an excuse for why it is possible.

Given GW2's presentation of Khilbron, it seems to me that Khilbron didn't intentionally set of the Cataclysm. It really seemed like he was tricked by Terrick and not just converted by him - as Terrick claimed. So Abaddon fooled Khilbron into destroying his nation, but Khilbron still worked for the god.

And the seers look nothing like the mursaat. Their skin colors are completely different, as is their physic, and not to mention the number of limbs - remember, seers have four arms!

I recall reading from somewhere that it's the other way around - Oola found the Iron Forgeman and made copies of it in her lab.

It is not the same argument, since there are settings in which dragons are described as nonhuman. Thank you for asking so that I had a chance to clear that up.

Of course, no one knows how a nonhuman but sapient species would behave. But we can make guesses based on what makes humans behave in certain ways. Would it make sense for a sapient species to act more like pack animals than humans do? And so on. And then work from that. Of course there could be a sapient nonhuman species that behave exactly like humans do, but the odds for that are rather small - IMO.

Charr aggressiveness is similar to that in an aggressive human... Of course not similar to an average human.

I take serious offense at the way you reason about things. The purpose of food is energy? I guess our body matter is obtained from the air through osmosis. And, do not let XX be "destroyed" and therefore it means that XX will be destroyed as in killed permanently, not destroyed as they would be in the physical world, that is, sent to another world? Maybe souls killed in underworld are sent to the RoT. You don't know. I see the whole souls being dissolved thing as not being supported at all by the lore.

Good point about Khilbron and the Cataclysm, but assuming that Abaddon was the mastermind of all this, it still seems kinda daft to set things up like that. Also, thanks for pointing out the Oola part.

Yes, seers look different from mursaat, yet they resemble each other. Well, compare a Chihuahua to a S:t Bernhard. Apart from the different number of limbs part... Though, that doesn't mean that seers are mursaat. It would be cool to hear more about them though. It's a far superior choice to keep working on what you have instead of inventing new lore all the time (e.g. dragons).

[raspberry jam]

Evans, on 20 December 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Sigh, I'm gonna try one more time.

It's irrelevant if they know north from south. The only living human soul that apparently has been there and claimed it's existence is Saul, a "prophet" puppet of the Mursaat who apparently spent but a little time with the Krytans after his miraculous return before being dragged off by the Mursaat. The place is referenced by a single White Mantle warrior who most likely heard of it's existence from his superiors, probably Confessor Dorian. Everything Saul has claimed could very well be a lie. That doesn't mean he didn't think it true, but no one has ever confirmed this for all we know. Heck, they lied about his death so who knows what other religious lies they came up with. The map tells us clearly that the islands are north of Kryta, ergo the Mantle warrior was misinformed, period.

The Island of Janthir is said to have inhabitants which have the gift of true sight. They are never said to be human or even friendly, in fact considering the Eye of Janthir is an artifact that can identify those capable of detecting the Mursaat, it's very much plausible the inhabitants of the Isle of Janthir were the enemies of the Mursaat. And even if it would make sense that the Eye was found on a base of the Mursaat on the Ring of Fire, it still doesn't mean that this island is truly the Island of Janthir.

Saying that it's called Janthir by humans is also false. Saul went there with the Mursaat (assuming he truly did), so either the place was already called Janthir by it's inhabitants, whatever they are, or it was named so by the Mursaat. If it was named so by it's original inhabitants, who's to say other races didn't know of it's existence and name? There's still the possibility that the place is still unknown to the world but on our map from a game mechanic perspective.

This time you banked your entire response on the idea that Saul truly went there and was not lied to by the Mursaat. You can't prove that and you can't prove the location on the map of GW1. You can however prove it's location on the map of GW2.

Considering islands don't just teleport themselves across the globe I'm done arguing about this.

Obviously Janthir is north of Kryta because it says so on the map. But why then would the WM claim that it's to the south? Your response is that the mursaat lied to Saul, or that Saul lied about everything to everybody, or that Dorian lied to the other WM, or that the WM lies to everyone else....? Probably what we went through during the Saul mission in the BMP was a lie, too.

Or it could be that ANet made a mistake when they decided that the island to the north is Janthir. The only other reasonable explanation is that 1) the WM guy made a mistake, which I find unlikely because religious zealots tend to at least keep track of their own mythology, or 2) that the WM say that Janthir is to the south because they don't want people to find the island.

That is our three alternatives.

I find it interesting when people post a long argument and then say that they are done with the thread. Do they expect people not to reply to them?

[BuddhaKeks]

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

That would mean that souls that necromancers were near have less energy when they arrive in the mists. I find that unlikely. Also, necromancers get energy even when people die while in the mists.

Scorch Emberfire is there. Despite mentioning his soul several times, he doesn't look like this:

That doesn't mean that he isn't dead, but how come only human souls get to be transparent?

The theory that elder ra... species match up against playables is nice, but it has a couple of things unaccounted for. Mursaat doesn't seem to have gender either (there are mursaat with female names, but there is no obvious gender differences). I also don't see how having a path in Arah would make seers a separate species. They might be a separate race, though.

But the GW1 charr are not simply furry orcs. As I said, they had other things going for them, they had civilization and that civilization was not human. That you mention an "actual society" is pretty much proof of that they are more human in GW2... Do you think that an antheap is an "actual society"? It is, and it's as human as the charr were in GW1.

No, you said that they were "generic evil" in GW1, and that they became "more relatable" in GW2. Now I see that you agree that the "generic evil" part was removed in GW2, which makes them... less charr-like.

I am seriously confused by your statement: "For many people it's simply more fun playing Charr or Asura than playing 'war-hungry humans' or 'very smart humans'.".
Because these people are playing war hungry humans and very smart humans, respectively. It's just that those humans happen to look like big cats and little rat puppets.

That cathedral is awesome. And I'll send that PM later

Who says souls don't have less energy when they enter the mists after there mortal body was slain with a necro nearby? Somewhere this energy has to come from and why would it be called soul reaping if it doesn't involve, well soul reaping? And necros getting energy in the underworld also speaks for the theory that souls get destroyed if killed in afterlife. While mechanicly he doesn't, maybe the necro get's more energy there, lore wise. Besides that, read Konig's post, which provides sources to the claim that souls can be destroyed.

Kodan have two genders, yet they all look the same. Mursaat all look the same yet have male and female sounding names. They might not have sexual dimorphism like other species. I only mentioned the Seer being genderless because it was said so by Bobby Stein. Quote: "Though Evennia refers to the Seer as a female, the Ancient Seers are actually genderless." And yes they are confirmed to be a species on there own, in GW1 and especially 2. Also another quote from Anet: "In those ancient days, the Seers fought against the mursaat, but they were in turn defeated by their enemies, and their civilization lost to the ravages of time." I don't think rogue Mursaat would be able to build a whole civilization of their own. The Flame Legion didn't, the Stone Summit didn't and the White Mantle didn't. Yes they were different from the rest of their people, but not as different as the Seer are from the Mursaat.

I think in the case of Scorch Emberfire it's more time restriction or laziness on Anets part, that he is not transparent. His dialog clearly states he is a soul and has died before.

"My soul longs to bask in the flames of the lands we called home. I've been imprisoned here for what seems ages."
"Always toward Arah, where the gods once lived. All that awaited us there was death. What sort of god would lead its people to destruction?"

This is also as far as I know the first time a Charr is not portrayed as an barbaric enemy. We get insight for the first time in what going on in the mind of a Charr soldier. See how he actually mourns the death of his people in Arah? I don't think this would have happened in Prophecies. They were just enemies there, nothing more.

Another example of a Charr in the RoT is Gaarfaz Steelfur, member of the Oddbodies. He worked for the demons when he first entered the RoT, but switched sides after the demons started to devour the souls of his warband mates.

See these are the first actual signs of relatable Charr. After they still appear as enemies, but we see that they are more than savage beast. They have honor, they care for their companions and they feel betrayed by the titans. None of this was in Prophecies, that game had at best hint at it in the titan quests. From there on Charr got more developed, more human-like in your words. In my words, that just natural character development.

If you think otherwise please explain to me how Charr in Prophecies are more than furred orcs and how they are just cat-faced humans in GW2? Is giving character to a race now humanization?

See I think you are contradicting yourself now. You say GW2 Charr are to human, but when I say GW1, especially Prophecies Charr were furred orcs it's wrong, because tehy are more than that. What more? And after you explained apply the same logic to GW2 Charr. Are they still cat-faced humans now?

And yes if you boil it down to it's very basics than Charr could be replaced by war-hungry humans. Would that make them more fun to play? Instead of 300 pound catmonster you know play a 200 pund human with rage issues? And that's ignoring the Charrs talent for engineering, their hate for gods, the true companionship between members of the smae warband. You have to ignore so much to make GW2 Charr into war-hungry humans. Would you really honestly think people would like to play something as one-dimensional as that? Wouldn't they prefer the cool looking, intelligent race of badasses instead?

And if Charr are so very human now, which human culture would you pick to replace them? The Kournans are the only remotley fitting, if you ask me. And even that is a huge stretch.

And no this is not a discussion about facts, you simply don't like that people can play different races in GW2 instead of just humans. You try to come of reasons for it, which make no sense to anyone else here. (Or atlest to the people being vocal about it). I mean, I'm sure you are pretty cool guy, and I beginn to enjoy having an exchange with you, but this discussion about the Charr being cat-faced humans runs in circles. I just like how the Charr changed, you don't, there is no right or wrong, just opinions.

In the words of someone far wiser than me: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Edit: Forgot about the Mursaat/Seer having no gender thing

Edited by BuddhaKeks, 20 December 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Evans]

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Obviously Janthir is north of Kryta because it says so on the map. But why then would the WM claim that it's to the south? Your response is that the mursaat lied to Saul, or that Saul lied about everything to everybody, or that Dorian lied to the other WM, or that the WM lies to everyone else....? Probably what we went through during the Saul mission in the BMP was a lie, too.

Or it could be that ANet made a mistake when they decided that the island to the north is Janthir. The only other reasonable explanation is that 1) the WM guy made a mistake, which I find unlikely because religious zealots tend to at least keep track of their own mythology, or 2) that the WM say that Janthir is to the south because they don't want people to find the island.

That is our three alternatives.

I find it interesting when people post a long argument and then say that they are done with the thread. Do they expect people not to reply to them?

Only because I don't know how else to explain something I find extremely straightforward. I didn't say I'm done with the topic, just with the specific bit we're discussing because I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

But to make myself a hypocrite: my point is that Saul himself was most likely deceived, making the source of everything tainted. All the WM zealots may be singing Sauls story, but that doesn't help if the story itself is wrong.

[Konig Des Todes]

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

That doesn't mean that he isn't dead, but how come only human souls get to be transparent?

Blame resources.

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

It is not the same argument, since there are settings in which dragons are described as nonhuman. Thank you for asking so that I had a chance to clear that up.

Of course, no one knows how a nonhuman but sapient species would behave. But we can make guesses based on what makes humans behave in certain ways. Would it make sense for a sapient species to act more like pack animals than humans do? And so on. And then work from that. Of course there could be a sapient nonhuman species that behave exactly like humans do, but the odds for that are rather small - IMO.

Charr aggressiveness is similar to that in an aggressive human... Of course not similar to an average human.

I take serious offense at the way you reason about things. The purpose of food is energy? I guess our body matter is obtained from the air through osmosis. And, do not let XX be "destroyed" and therefore it means that XX will be destroyed as in killed permanently, not destroyed as they would be in the physical world, that is, sent to another world? Maybe souls killed in underworld are sent to the RoT. You don't know. I see the whole souls being dissolved thing as not being supported at all by the lore.

[...]

Yes, seers look different from mursaat, yet they resemble each other. Well, compare a Chihuahua to a S:t Bernhard. Apart from the different number of limbs part... Though, that doesn't mean that seers are mursaat. It would be cool to hear more about them though. It's a far superior choice to keep working on what you have instead of inventing new lore all the time (e.g. dragons).

...

Your argument for how charr are too human is exactly the same for your argument for why dragons are not too human. And you say its not the same argument because "there are settings in which dragons are described as nonhuman" - but isn't GW2 also a setting in which charr are described as nonhuman? You're making loops here. Contradictory loops.

And your example for how to figure out how non-human sapient species would act also sounds outright contradictory to me. But I'm going to blame this one on communication error.

I disagree on the case of charr aggressiveness being similar to an aggressive human. Last time I saw, an aggressive human doesn't growl. Well, not those who are still sane.

Oookay. Firstly, food is consumed so that our bodies have energy to function and move. That is what I meant. Its got nothing to do with matter obtained from air or osmosis - I don't even know why or how you get to that point. We know that souls don't go to the Realm of Torment from being killed in the Underworld because they're both equal plans of existences - it's like saying a soul killed in continental Tyria gets sent to Elona. Makes no *ing sense - excuse my language. And the definition of destroy is to kill or put an end to - ergo, the cease of existence/life. Ergo, the destruction of a soul means the cease of the soul existing - I change not the wording, nor the definition of the words chosen. You not agreeing with this is just you ignoring canon lore - a case of Fanon Discontinuity. Unless you wish to argue that the keepers of souls are wrong about how they want you to deal with souls or what can happen to them, or are you going to wish that while a word was use they didn't mean that word's definition?

I still see no similarity between mursaat and seer - that's even sillier than largos and seer or largos and mursaat. Besides the fact that we outright know they're not the same, and have since Prophecies.

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Or it could be that ANet made a mistake when they decided that the island to the north is Janthir. The only other reasonable explanation is that 1) the WM guy made a mistake, which I find unlikely because religious zealots tend to at least keep track of their own mythology, or 2) that the WM say that Janthir is to the south because they don't want people to find the island.

You do realize that "religious zealot" that told us Janthir is to the south... left the White Mantle... right? That's very zealous of such a religious man! Abandoning his faith!

There can be hundreds of possibilities for why Janthir is to the north when we're told by Franklin - a single, fallible man who is, despite your claims, not all that zealous (at least compared to the other White Mantle). I personally find that the top brass lied to be the most likely explanation, considering that the BMP of Saul's Story is truth, and that even a latter Confessor (Tenad the Faithful) did not know of Saul lack-of-a-corpse. Yup, even top brass of the White Mantle were lied to about Saul's disappearance, not just the populous.

Now, if Dorian, Hablion, and Thommis lied about Saul's death to the point that even those who would be equal ranked to Dorian in the future would be unknowing of this fact, who's to say that the location of Janthir was twisted to hide the truth? Be it Saul, the mursaat, Dorian, or others who did the fibbing.

Another possibility is that Saul did travel south - to one of those mursaat teleporters, which took him north. But he wouldn't know he went far north. Or maybe he did, but Franklin's statement would still be truth since all he says is "Saul D'Alession traveled south" - maybe he traveled south then north. Who's to say.

[raspberry jam]

BuddhaKeks, on 20 December 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Who says souls don't have less energy when they enter the mists after there mortal body was slain with a necro nearby? Somewhere this energy has to come from and why would it be called soul reaping if it doesn't involve, well soul reaping? And necros getting energy in the underworld also speaks for the theory that souls get destroyed if killed in afterlife. While mechanicly he doesn't, maybe the necro get's more energy there, lore wise. Besides that, read Konig's post, which provides sources to the claim that souls can be destroyed.

I think in the case of Scorch Emberfire it's more time restriction or laziness on Anets part, that he is not transparent. His dialog clearly states he is a soul and has died before.

"My soul longs to bask in the flames of the lands we called home. I've been imprisoned here for what seems ages."
"Always toward Arah, where the gods once lived. All that awaited us there was death. What sort of god would lead its people to destruction?"

This is also as far as I know the first time a Charr is not portrayed as an barbaric enemy. We get insight for the first time in what going on in the mind of a Charr soldier. See how he actually mourns the death of his people in Arah? I don't think this would have happened in Prophecies. They were just enemies there, nothing more.

Another example of a Charr in the RoT is Gaarfaz Steelfur, member of the Oddbodies. He worked for the demons when he first entered the RoT, but switched sides after the demons started to devour the souls of his warband mates.

See these are the first actual signs of relatable Charr. After they still appear as enemies, but we see that they are more than savage beast. They have honor, they care for their companions and they feel betrayed by the titans. None of this was in Prophecies, that game had at best hint at it in the titan quests. From there on Charr got more developed, more human-like in your words. In my words, that just natural character development.

If you think otherwise please explain to me how Charr in Prophecies are more than furred orcs and how a soulthey are just cat-faced humans in GW2? Is giving character to a race now humanization?

See I think you are contradicting yourself now. You say GW2 Charr are to human, but when I say GW1, especially Prophecies Charr were furred orcs it's wrong, because tehy are more than that. What more? And after you explained apply the same logic to GW2 Charr. Are they still cat-faced humans now?

And yes if you boil it down to it's very basics than Charr could be replaced by war-hungry humans. Would that make them more fun to play? Instead of 300 pound catmonster you know play a 200 pund human with rage issues? And that's ignoring the Charrs talent for engineering, their hate for gods, the true companionship between members of the smae warband. You have to ignore so much to make GW2 Charr into war-hungry humans. Would you really honestly think people would like to play something as one-dimensional as that? Wouldn't they prefer the cool looking, intelligent race of badasses instead?

And if Charr are so very human now, which human culture would you pick to replace them? The Kournans are the only remotley fitting, if you ask me. And even that is a huge stretch.

And no this is not a discussion about facts, you simply don't like that people can play different races in GW2 instead of just humans. You try to come of reasons for it, which make no sense to anyone else here. (Or atlest to the people being vocal about it). I mean, I'm sure you are pretty cool guy, and I beginn to enjoy having an exchange with you, but this discussion about the Charr being cat-faced humans runs in circles. I just like how the Charr changed, you don't, there is no right or wrong, just opinions.

In the words of someone far wiser than me: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

I do. We have never observed a soul with somehow less energy, or rather, we sure have since there are all kinds of souls in the mists with varying energy of some sort, but we can't say for sure which part of that energy would be the SR energy, nor if the difference is due to SR... Nor does it explain why SR would work in the mists, or why SR would work the same for multiple necromancers.
Regardless of whether souls can be destroyed or not (which is a completely different issue), I still say that the SR energy being the energy that binds a soul to some sort of physical manifestation (whether actually physical in the physical world or quasi-physical, or however to call it, in the mists) is the most reasonable explanation.

Scorch's dialogue does not state that he is dead. "My soul longs to XX" does not mean "I'm dead", since living creatures can also speak of "my soul". Being imprisoned in the RoT doesn't mean that you are dead - supposedly the PCs are imprisoned there too, hopefully without being dead. Or hey maybe we are. And saying something like "all that awaited us there were death" - he could be speaking of "us" as in "the charr". All that said, though, I too think that he is dead. That's beside the point - where are all the nonhumans in the river of souls? Not there, that's where.
Also it's interesting that Scorch asks the same question as me.

Not being savage beasts does not mean being human-like. You could easily come up with a description of some sapient species having a very high and noble civilization without being human-iike in nature.

The charr in GW1 are not just furry orcs because they have access to things that orcs in most settings do not. Most importantly their nature seems to be skewed: in some areas, they are neolithic - look at their clumsily made armors and swords; remember that human aesthetics is not just about our concept of beauty but also about practicality, implying that charr probably inject a social element like added respect or a mark of social ranking to the ability to wear an armor weighing 3-4 times as much as it should for the level of protection it gives - in others, they are more advanced than humans - few coherent settings would see orcs setting off something like the Searing, especially when humans did not have access to anything similar (except Orr's Cataclysm, and possibly that mysterious box in the crystal desert). We never see their abodes in Prophecies, but since they are furred animals, it was reasonable to assume that they live outdoors more than indoors, and that they would not use clothes except for ceremony or protection (armor).
And so on. Orcs in certain settings might be nonhuman, but the generic version isn't. Charr in GW1 were not, but the GW2 version are.
And I still don't know how you can argue that they are nonhuman while at the same time saying that it's good that they are human. There is a major logic flaw in there, and it's a pretty obvious one, too.

But if people wanted to play something that looks cool they would play human. And yes, you could easily imagine a nation like ancient Sparta, where you could have the tightly knit warband loyalty thing, combined with a general interest in mechanical engineering among the population. Add a cultural atheism thing and boom, you have charr. Wait, no. Add fur and a second set of ears. Now you have charr.
Though I would not replace charr with any human civilization directly. Instead, when making a sequel, I would look at the civilizations already in the game, and work from that. Admittedly it's kinda thin, since Ascalon is destroyed: what we have to work with are Krytans and the Ascalonian refugees. Possibly also survivors of the foefire. And Ebonhawke, of course. In fact, I could see that city as where militaristic engineers come from... Except then we wouldn't have the angle of appealing to edgy teenagers.

No, sorry, your opinion about our discussion is wrong. We are discussing both facts and opinions here. The statement that charr became more human in GW2 is a fact. That you think it is good is an opinion (well actually it's a fact about your opinion but ya...). That I think it would be better to not allow other playable "races" is also an opinion. That playable "races" that are actually caricatures of humanity is hidden racism is, again, a fact.

[raspberry jam]

Evans, on 20 December 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Only because I don't know how else to explain something I find extremely straightforward. I didn't say I'm done with the topic, just with the specific bit we're discussing because I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

But to make myself a hypocrite: my point is that Saul himself was most likely deceived, making the source of everything tainted. All the WM zealots may be singing Sauls story, but that doesn't help if the story itself is wrong.

Wait ok... let me get your story straight. You are saying the following:

Saul went, or so someone in the WM says, to the south, and then the mursaat somehow teleported him far up north, to Janthir, or at least a place which he assumed to be Janthir, possibly because someone told him that it was even though it might not have been, where he either encountered the enemies of the mursaat (which might or might not be the seers), and somehow obtained the eye from them.

Did I get that right? Assuming that I did, could you please pretty please explain to me why the mursaat would send that guy to their enemies? Isn't a more likely explanation that he actually went south, found Janthir, met mursaat, they gave him the eye as well as True Sight so that he could kill off the Chosen that they knew would start to appear as foretold in the Flameseeker Prophecies? Especially since the eye is a detection device for Chosen?

Hmm. Actual question again, to lore people who know this stuff. Did Saul supposedly go to Janthir before or after his first encounter with the mursaat (which is supposed to have happened "in the jungle")? Could it have been so that that's the place he actually met them?

[raspberry jam]

Konig Des Todes, on 20 December 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Blame resources.

...

Your argument for how charr are too human is exactly the same for your argument for why dragons are not too human. And you say its not the same argument because "there are settings in which dragons are described as nonhuman" - but isn't GW2 also a setting in which charr are described as nonhuman? You're making loops here. Contradictory loops.

And your example for how to figure out how non-human sapient species would act also sounds outright contradictory to me. But I'm going to blame this one on communication error.

I disagree on the case of charr aggressiveness being similar to an aggressive human. Last time I saw, an aggressive human doesn't growl. Well, not those who are still sane.

Oookay. Firstly, food is consumed so that our bodies have energy to function and move. That is what I meant. Its got nothing to do with matter obtained from air or osmosis - I don't even know why or how you get to that point. We know that souls don't go to the Realm of Torment from being killed in the Underworld because they're both equal plans of existences - it's like saying a soul killed in continental Tyria gets sent to Elona. Makes no *ing sense - excuse my language. And the definition of destroy is to kill or put an end to - ergo, the cease of existence/life. Ergo, the destruction of a soul means the cease of the soul existing - I change not the wording, nor the definition of the words chosen. You not agreeing with this is just you ignoring canon lore - a case of Fanon Discontinuity. Unless you wish to argue that the keepers of souls are wrong about how they want you to deal with souls or what can happen to them, or are you going to wish that while a word was use they didn't mean that word's definition?

I still see no similarity between mursaat and seer - that's even sillier than largos and seer or largos and mursaat. Besides the fact that we outright know they're not the same, and have since Prophecies.

You do realize that "religious zealot" that told us Janthir is to the south... left the White Mantle... right? That's very zealous of such a religious man! Abandoning his faith!

There can be hundreds of possibilities for why Janthir is to the north when we're told by Franklin - a single, fallible man who is, despite your claims, not all that zealous (at least compared to the other White Mantle). I personally find that the top brass lied to be the most likely explanation, considering that the BMP of Saul's Story is truth, and that even a latter Confessor (Tenad the Faithful) did not know of Saul lack-of-a-corpse. Yup, even top brass of the White Mantle were lied to about Saul's disappearance, not just the populous.

Now, if Dorian, Hablion, and Thommis lied about Saul's death to the point that even those who would be equal ranked to Dorian in the future would be unknowing of this fact, who's to say that the location of Janthir was twisted to hide the truth? Be it Saul, the mursaat, Dorian, or others who did the fibbing.

Another possibility is that Saul did travel south - to one of those mursaat teleporters, which took him north. But he wouldn't know he went far north. Or maybe he did, but Franklin's statement would still be truth since all he says is "Saul D'Alession traveled south" - maybe he traveled south then north. Who's to say.

I don't blame resources since it would be easy to add nonhumans to the stream. Instead I argue that the nonhuman playable species were an afterthought.
Another possibility would be that humans (and the PCs of GW1 were always human) always see the transparent version of souls in the mists as human-shaped. Charr would see them as charr-shaped. They are just souls, after all: their special characteristic is the lack of a physical body.

Mm, no, GW2 is a setting in which charr are given a very human description.

Yes, you probably are unable to properly read and understand what I wrote. What I meant was that evolution shapes the way a certain species behave, and that the chance of some random species that happen to evolve into sapience would do so in the same way as humans did, which would reasonably make the resulting behaviour human-like, is rather small.

Wat, you never heard a human growl? We just don't sound the same as a lion would because our vocal apparatus aren't shaped like a lion's.

Food is consumed for a variety of reasons. Getting energy to move and maintain homeostasis is one reason, replacing actual body matter is another.
And how do you know that UW and RoT are "equal planes of existence"?? That is an assumption.
You are also assuming that words are always stringently used. Assume a boxer talking smack to another - he says "I will destroy you". Does he mean "I will dissolve your body in acid until nothing remains and then send the remains into the sun"? No. He just means he'll knock the other guy out. Yes, "destroy" can mean "put an end to" - as in, move the thing out of existence. Which very well could mean moving it from UW to RoT. Or to some other place.

Also largos don't hover, and are not the same size.

I'm not even going to touch the "first south then north" thing, that's laughable. So is the assumption that someone who leaves a religion suddenly forgets all its myths. Franklin left because the WM were a gangster band that killed the people they were supposed to protect.
And if we're including lies to the left and right, how do you know that Tenad don't know where Saul went?
How do you know that Saul isn't Salma? With a wig.
And no, I'm serious. If we assume that the game is lying to us at every step, we can't trust anything in it. Possibly not even Saul's Story.

Which leads us to the one possibility, that the mursaat would have teleported him north. The question is why would they do that? Maybe the eye was guarded somehow, by some thing that would defeat mursaat but that Saul could get past. Maybe they didn't even do that.

Ok, there is one more possibility. We are assuming that Saul got the Eye from Janthir. Maybe he was never actually there. If he's lying, maybe the mursaat just gave it to him when they met, and all the rest - the trip south, Janthir, everything  - is made up by Saul (or his followers).

[BuddhaKeks]

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

I do. We have never observed a soul with somehow less energy, or rather, we sure have since there are all kinds of souls in the mists with varying energy of some sort, but we can't say for sure which part of that energy would be the SR energy, nor if the difference is due to SR... Nor does it explain why SR would work in the mists, or why SR would work the same for multiple necromancers.
Regardless of whether souls can be destroyed or not (which is a completely different issue), I still say that the SR energy being the energy that binds a soul to some sort of physical manifestation (whether actually physical in the physical world or quasi-physical, or however to call it, in the mists) is the most reasonable explanation.

Scorch's dialogue does not state that he is dead. "My soul longs to XX" does not mean "I'm dead", since living creatures can also speak of "my soul". Being imprisoned in the RoT doesn't mean that you are dead - supposedly the PCs are imprisoned there too, hopefully without being dead. Or hey maybe we are. And saying something like "all that awaited us there were death" - he could be speaking of "us" as in "the charr". All that said, though, I too think that he is dead. That's beside the point - where are all the nonhumans in the river of souls? Not there, that's where.
Also it's interesting that Scorch asks the same question as me.

Not being savage beasts does not mean being human-like. You could easily come up with a description of some sapient species having a very high and noble civilization without being human-iike in nature.

The charr in GW1 are not just furry orcs because they have access to things that orcs in most settings do not. Most importantly their nature seems to be skewed: in some areas, they are neolithic - look at their clumsily made armors and swords; remember that human aesthetics is not just about our concept of beauty but also about practicality, implying that charr probably inject a social element like added respect or a mark of social ranking to the ability to wear an armor weighing 3-4 times as much as it should for the level of protection it gives - in others, they are more advanced than humans - few coherent settings would see orcs setting off something like the Searing, especially when humans did not have access to anything similar (except Orr's Cataclysm, and possibly that mysterious box in the crystal desert). We never see their abodes in Prophecies, but since they are furred animals, it was reasonable to assume that they live outdoors more than indoors, and that they would not use clothes except for ceremony or protection (armor).
And so on. Orcs in certain settings might be nonhuman, but the generic version isn't. Charr in GW1 were not, but the GW2 version are.
And I still don't know how you can argue that they are nonhuman while at the same time saying that it's good that they are human. There is a major logic flaw in there, and it's a pretty obvious one, too.

But if people wanted to play something that looks cool they would play human. And yes, you could easily imagine a nation like ancient Sparta, where you could have the tightly knit warband loyalty thing, combined with a general interest in mechanical engineering among the population. Add a cultural atheism thing and boom, you have charr. Wait, no. Add fur and a second set of ears. Now you have charr.
Though I would not replace charr with any human civilization directly. Instead, when making a sequel, I would look at the civilizations already in the game, and work from that. Admittedly it's kinda thin, since Ascalon is destroyed: what we have to work with are Krytans and the Ascalonian refugees. Possibly also survivors of the foefire. And Ebonhawke, of course. In fact, I could see that city as where militaristic engineers come from... Except then we wouldn't have the angle of appealing to edgy teenagers.

No, sorry, your opinion about our discussion is wrong. We are discussing both facts and opinions here. The statement that charr became more human in GW2 is a fact. That you think it is good is an opinion (well actually it's a fact about your opinion but ya...). That I think it would be better to not allow other playable "races" is also an opinion. That playable "races" that are actually caricatures of humanity is hidden racism is, again, a fact.

Game mechanics; it would be unfair if one necro get's more energy for a kill, because he is standing closer to the corpse, or if a necro couldn't use SR because he is in the mists. I have to ask you however, if that energy comes from ripping a soul out of it:s host body, not from the soul self, how does SR work in the mists? I gave you an explanation, that the necromancer consumes all energy (or atelast a good chunk of it) that is left from the soul, if it is killed in the afterlife. So I'm not the one who has to back up his arguement.

I have to say regarding the river of souls, do these seriously look human to you? They could be from any humanoid race (except centaur maybe?). Besides there is also a quest in EotN where a dwarf's soul gets transportet into the mists by an avatar of Dwayna. So yes, non-human souls are send to the mists.

See I'm using your logic, I look at a race, boil it down to it's basics. What is left with the Prophecies Charr? Furred orcs. Now you give me details why they are not furred orcs. Use the same details on GW2 Charr. They are still cat-faced humans, according to you. "F*ck logic! I don't need that sh*t!" That's what I imagine you saying, while typing your posts.^^

You can't tell me that it is okay to boil down a race at one point (where it fits your arguement), but it's wrong at another point (where it contradicts your arguement). That does not make sense and is not the basis for any healthy discussion.

But let me demonstrate your logic again: Prophecies Charr use clothing, despite having fur, that's so human! Prophecies Charr use weapons despite having claws and teeth, that's so human! Prophecies Charr use magic, because humans did it first, that's so human!

This is what you sound like, really. And again you twisted my words. I say, making charr more relatable is a good thing, I don't say they are more human through this though.

Besides that you can boil down absolutly every fictional race down to an exaggerated human caricature. Every single one! Because they are made by humans with human minds, who can only use human civilization as a reference. It's just impossible to make a race 100% alien, and the more alien they are the less are they fit for bein playable. A race sharing human characteristics is however not a bad thing.

The Charr being more human is not a fact, that is your opinion. They are more relatable, that is a fact. What we think about them being more relatable to the players, is also opinion. The hidden racism thing is the only thing factual about it, but it's a minor point, and besides that you seem to think this is bad, while I don't mind it, is also opinion. This plus miscommunication lead us to circle around with the same arguements for several posts now.

Edited by BuddhaKeks, 20 December 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Evans]

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

I'm not even going to touch the "first south then north" thing, that's laughable. So is the assumption that someone who leaves a religion suddenly forgets all its myths. Franklin left because the WM were a gangster band that killed the people they were supposed to protect.
And if we're including lies to the left and right, how do you know that Tenad don't know where Saul went?
How do you know that Saul isn't Salma? With a wig.
And no, I'm serious. If we assume that the game is lying to us at every step, we can't trust anything in it. Possibly not even Saul's Story.

Which leads us to the one possibility, that the mursaat would have teleported him north. The question is why would they do that? Maybe the eye was guarded somehow, by some thing that would defeat mursaat but that Saul could get past. Maybe they didn't even do that.

Ok, there is one more possibility. We are assuming that Saul got the Eye from Janthir. Maybe he was never actually there. If he's lying, maybe the mursaat just gave it to him when they met, and all the rest - the trip south, Janthir, everything  - is made up by Saul (or his followers).

Actually that is what I'm saying yes. If you remember, when we are retreiving the eye, and are told of it's origin we were being deceived by the White Mantle. Why do you consider them worth your trust then?

Most likely when the team was writing that bit of story they just added the south of here part because on the world map there were no islands to be found in the north. It was probably already decided that the eye was just a plot device and wasn't to be brought up again.

When making GW2 they must have decided to bring the Isles of Janthir back in a content update to spice up the game again and decided to place them north because they can. The probably didn't think anyone would object and if they did there were actually no loose ends because in the previous game it's exact location was never confirmed.

However, that's not relevant to Tyria, so all we can say is that the White Mantle was lying or was lied to and thus had it all wrong.

Edited by Evans, 20 December 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Konig Des Todes]

raspberry jam, on 20 December 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Mm, no, GW2 is a setting in which charr are given a very human description.

Yes, you probably are unable to properly read and understand what I wrote. What I meant was that evolution shapes the way a certain species behave, and that the chance of some random species that happen to evolve into sapience would do so in the same way as humans did, which would reasonably make the resulting behaviour human-like, is rather small.

Wat, you never heard a human growl? We just don't sound the same as a lion would because our vocal apparatus aren't shaped like a lion's.

Food is consumed for a variety of reasons. Getting energy to move and maintain homeostasis is one reason, replacing actual body matter is another.
And how do you know that UW and RoT are "equal planes of existence"?? That is an assumption.
You are also assuming that words are always stringently used. Assume a boxer talking smack to another - he says "I will destroy you". Does he mean "I will dissolve your body in acid until nothing remains and then send the remains into the sun"? No. He just means he'll knock the other guy out. Yes, "destroy" can mean "put an end to" - as in, move the thing out of existence. Which very well could mean moving it from UW to RoT. Or to some other place.

Also largos don't hover, and are not the same size.

I'm not even going to touch the "first south then north" thing, that's laughable. So is the assumption that someone who leaves a religion suddenly forgets all its myths. Franklin left because the WM were a gangster band that killed the people they were supposed to protect.
And if we're including lies to the left and right, how do you know that Tenad don't know where Saul went?
How do you know that Saul isn't Salma? With a wig.
And no, I'm serious. If we assume that the game is lying to us at every step, we can't trust anything in it. Possibly not even Saul's Story.

Which leads us to the one possibility, that the mursaat would have teleported him north. The question is why would they do that? Maybe the eye was guarded somehow, by some thing that would defeat mursaat but that Saul could get past. Maybe they didn't even do that.

Ok, there is one more possibility. We are assuming that Saul got the Eye from Janthir. Maybe he was never actually there. If he's lying, maybe the mursaat just gave it to him when they met, and all the rest - the trip south, Janthir, everything  - is made up by Saul (or his followers).

No where have I ever seen "the charr are like humans in [...]" from the developers or the game.

Thanks for the insult, your just making yourself out to be an asshole in my eyes. Perhaps its you who worded things poorly, because your restatement was a hell of a lot clearer than your original wording. However, I disagree - if the two species (humans and Species X) were to evolve in different environments, then yes, you would be correct. However, the charr evolved in an environment shared by humans (among others who also share environments with humans- especially their latest industrial revolution which greatly altered their culture), and as drax said species that share an environment - communication or no - tend to developer similar traits.

Oh, I have heard a human growl. Hence why I said "not a sane one." Though that's a bit of an exaggeration, your normal - and even many abnormal - aggressive humans don't growl. None I've met or seen or heard of at least. Most cases which I've heard/seen of such is when they're struck with some illness, had a strange upbringing, or are under the influence of something.

And why does body matter disappear? Because energy is burned from said body matter.

No, actually it's not an assumption that the Underworld and Realm of Torment are equal planes of existence. We know, for starters, thanks to the Reaper of the Bone Pits that they are connected - similarly, we know that the Fissure of Woe and The Underworld are connected thanks to one of the quests in FoW (the one with the enslaved hero - after we free him, we're told by the quest giver they're going to go to Grenth in the Underworld for proper judgment). We also know that all three are afterlives and realms of gods. This means they're equal, that is, connected planes of existences in the afterlife.

How does one "move the thing out of existence" from the Underworld, into the Underworld. Where would something go from the Underworld - that is, from the Mists which encompasses all existence - when removing it from existence? There is metaphorical use of the term, yes, but these are not used in an obviously metaphorical sense nor is there need for the speakers to be metaphorical - nor are they in any other time. And even your example is not truly metaphorical - because the true meaning is destroying his chance at winning the match.

Actually, largos are the same size. They also hold the same skin texture as mursaat. But I never claimed that largos are mursaat or seers - just that others have and that to claim seers are mursaat is just as foolish due to the innumerable differences. How you can claim the skinny lanky four-armed dark blue/gray/black seers are the same as the muscular, pale, two-armed mursaat is beyond my comprehension. I don't think I'm stupid enough for that (you insult me, I'll insult you).

Myths are seldom true. So you yourself are admitting that Franklin was wrong - whether he believed himself to be or not. Furthermore, he left after he told us. I brought up the fact he left to show that he isn't as zealous as you have been claiming, because your claim skewed your view on the matter. I see no issue with the "south then north" concept, though there is the question of when Saul had the time to travel to Janthir before his death since supposedly when he came back the charr invasion was underway - the very invasion he "died" during.

I never claimed Tenad didn't know where Saul went - not for the eye at least. I'm just pointing out the fact that a confessor - the same rank as Isaiah and Dorian (aka leader figures of the White Mantle) did not know that Saul was never buried - if you talk to the Emissary of Dwayna in the area in GW2, she states that he never knew this. He guarded the tomb his life, always believing that Saul was truly buried there.

Your statement about Salma is beyond ridiculous. I'm beginning to think that your sole purpose here is trolling.

No one ever said the game's lying at every step of the game. However, if you haven't realized that Guild Wars lore is founded upon the principle of subjective truth, then you are blind. You cannot take every NPC's words at face value. If you do then you'll get no where because of the amount of contradicting NPCs. You have to compare the whole and find out what's right and not. There are some objective truths like the world map, or developer statements (the latter being objective truths until otherwise altered as their objective truths are not in game and thus can change), but most - including Franklin - NPCs speak subjective truths. Meaning there's some truth to what they say, and there's some falsehood too.

Saul's Story is one of the objective truths, as are the other BMP missions, because we're experiencing the actual event first hand - we're not being told about it. The White Mantle stating that Saul died during that time is a subjective truth, proven wrong by the objective truth. The statement that Janthir lies to the south is a subjective truth, proven wrong by the objective truth of the world map.

I believe your "one more possibility" was mentioned before and you previously dismissed it.

[raspberry jam]

BuddhaKeks, on 20 December 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Game mechanics; it would be unfair if one necro get's more energy for a kill, because he is standing closer to the corpse, or if a necro couldn't use SR because he is in the mists. I have to ask you however, if that energy comes from ripping a soul out of it:s host body, not from the soul self, how does SR work in the mists? I gave you an explanation, that the necromancer consumes all energy (or atelast a good chunk of it) that is left from the soul, if it is killed in the afterlife. So I'm not the one who has to back up his arguement.

I have to say regarding the river of souls, do these seriously look human to you? They could be from any humanoid race (except centaur maybe?). Besides there is also a quest in EotN where a dwarf's soul gets transportet into the mists by an avatar of Dwayna. So yes, non-human souls are send to the mists.

See I'm using your logic, I look at a race, boil it down to it's basics. What is left with the Prophecies Charr? Furred orcs. Now you give me details why they are not furred orcs. Use the same details on GW2 Charr. They are still cat-faced humans, according to you. "F*ck logic! I don't need that sh*t!" That's what I imagine you saying, while typing your posts.^^

You can't tell me that it is okay to boil down a race at one point (where it fits your arguement), but it's wrong at another point (where it contradicts your arguement). That does not make sense and is not the basis for any healthy discussion.

But let me demonstrate your logic again: Prophecies Charr use clothing, despite having fur, that's so human! Prophecies Charr use weapons despite having claws and teeth, that's so human! Prophecies Charr use magic, because humans did it first, that's so human!

This is what you sound like, really. And again you twisted my words. I say, making charr more relatable is a good thing, I don't say they are more human through this though.

Besides that you can boil down absolutly every fictional race down to an exaggerated human caricature. Every single one! Because they are made by humans with human minds, who can only use human civilization as a reference. It's just impossible to make a race 100% alien, and the more alien they are the less are they fit for bein playable. A race sharing human characteristics is however not a bad thing.

The Charr being more human is not a fact, that is your opinion. They are more relatable, that is a fact. What we think about them being more relatable to the players, is also opinion. The hidden racism thing is the only thing factual about it, but it's a minor point, and besides that you seem to think this is bad, while I don't mind it, is also opinion. This plus miscommunication lead us to circle around with the same arguements for several posts now.

Because even in the mists, souls have some sort of form - not physical of course, but "physical" to that plane of existence. That form in itself have energy, separate from the energy of the soul itself, just as how it works in the physical world. That would also explain why minions give energy when they die... They are only form, no soul. IIRC.

Nope, they don't look human! You are right. Though I seem to recall that they looked human in the cutscenes.
And yes... no... we don't know where Dwayna took him, but likely to the mists. We don't know what part, though. Probably not the RoT.

No, GW2 charr are not the same as in GW1. They are much more relatable. You can call charr "furry orcs" in GW1, but that confuses the point... Orcs are not identical in every setting. Charr are only seen in one setting (or two, depending on how much you think the lore differs between GW1 and 2). If you, for example, say that GW1 charr are "furry LotR orcs", then no, they are not. You can try to boil them down to that, but there are differences. If you on the other hand say that GW1 charr are "furry orcs of an imaginary setting where orcs behave like GW1 charr" then yeah.
Saying that charr are catfaced humans is still different. Because "human" in that respect doesn't mean "GW1/2 human". It means "real world human". Yes, those two are different - real world humans have a much broader spectrum of societial structures and behaviours than in-game humans will ever have.

As you notice, I never use arguments like wearing clothes, using weapons, and certainly not ever using magic (using magic is not a human trait at all, when was the last time you cast Fireball?). That is your take on my words, an erroneous take that you likely made up to be able to argue your point - a classic tactic. I expected more from you, though. I could spend 40+ lines just kicking you around this thread for trying to use that trick against someone far more skilled in the art of rhetoric combat than yourself, but you know what? I won't, because you said you were having a hard year or something. You could use some slack.

Instead I'll have you explain how you can make a species more relatable without making them more human. Please be in depth about it and don't forget that not only do I know arguing better than you, I also know psychology better than you. In fact, I'll give you a pointer to where you can start. If you want to make something relatable, you need that something to build something resembling rapport.
And how would you do that? In a species?
Go on, now. Tell me.

And yes, it has already been established in this thread that you can come up with sapient species that are not human in nature (the examples so far are neogi from D&D Spelljammer and mycons from Star Control - I guess you can possibly add reapers from Mass Effect to that list). The classical way of coming up with species though is to take humanity and make a number of caricatures on it.

No, of course you don't mind racism. Got that cross and matches ready? But, yes, that charr are more human in nature in GW2 is a fact.

Evans, on 20 December 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Actually that is what I'm saying yes. If you remember, when we are retreiving the eye, and are told of it's origin we were being deceived by the White Mantle. Why do you consider them worth your trust then?

Most likely when the team was writing that bit of story they just added the south of here part because on the world map there were no islands to be found in the north. It was probably already decided that the eye was just a plot device and wasn't to be brought up again.

When making GW2 they must have decided to bring the Isles of Janthir back in a content update to spice up the game again and decided to place them north because they can. The probably didn't think anyone would object and if they did there were actually no loose ends because in the previous game it's exact location was never confirmed.

However, that's not relevant to Tyria, so all we can say is that the White Mantle was lying or was lied to and thus had it all wrong.

...damn.

Yes, I agree. So how did he get the eye then?

[raspberry jam]

Konig Des Todes, on 20 December 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

No where have I ever seen "the charr are like humans in [...]" from the developers or the game.

Thanks for the insult, your just making yourself out to be an asshole in my eyes. Perhaps its you who worded things poorly, because your restatement was a hell of a lot clearer than your original wording. However, I disagree - if the two species (humans and Species X) were to evolve in different environments, then yes, you would be correct. However, the charr evolved in an environment shared by humans (among others who also share environments with humans- especially their latest industrial revolution which greatly altered their culture), and as drax said species that share an environment - communication or no - tend to developer similar traits.

Oh, I have heard a human growl. Hence why I said "not a sane one." Though that's a bit of an exaggeration, your normal - and even many abnormal - aggressive humans don't growl. None I've met or seen or heard of at least. Most cases which I've heard/seen of such is when they're struck with some illness, had a strange upbringing, or are under the influence of something.

And why does body matter disappear? Because energy is burned from said body matter.

No, actually it's not an assumption that the Underworld and Realm of Torment are equal planes of existence. We know, for starters, thanks to the Reaper of the Bone Pits that they are connected - similarly, we know that the Fissure of Woe and The Underworld are connected thanks to one of the quests in FoW (the one with the enslaved hero - after we free him, we're told by the quest giver they're going to go to Grenth in the Underworld for proper judgment). We also know that all three are afterlives and realms of gods. This means they're equal, that is, connected planes of existences in the afterlife.

How does one "move the thing out of existence" from the Underworld, into the Underworld. Where would something go from the Underworld - that is, from the Mists which encompasses all existence - when removing it from existence? There is metaphorical use of the term, yes, but these are not used in an obviously metaphorical sense nor is there need for the speakers to be metaphorical - nor are they in any other time. And even your example is not truly metaphorical - because the true meaning is destroying his chance at winning the match.

Actually, largos are the same size. They also hold the same skin texture as mursaat. But I never claimed that largos are mursaat or seers - just that others have and that to claim seers are mursaat is just as foolish due to the innumerable differences. How you can claim the skinny lanky four-armed dark blue/gray/black seers are the same as the muscular, pale, two-armed mursaat is beyond my comprehension. I don't think I'm stupid enough for that (you insult me, I'll insult you).

Myths are seldom true. So you yourself are admitting that Franklin was wrong - whether he believed himself to be or not. Furthermore, he left after he told us. I brought up the fact he left to show that he isn't as zealous as you have been claiming, because your claim skewed your view on the matter. I see no issue with the "south then north" concept, though there is the question of when Saul had the time to travel to Janthir before his death since supposedly when he came back the charr invasion was underway - the very invasion he "died" during.

I never claimed Tenad didn't know where Saul went - not for the eye at least. I'm just pointing out the fact that a confessor - the same rank as Isaiah and Dorian (aka leader figures of the White Mantle) did not know that Saul was never buried - if you talk to the Emissary of Dwayna in the area in GW2, she states that he never knew this. He guarded the tomb his life, always believing that Saul was truly buried there.

Your statement about Salma is beyond ridiculous. I'm beginning to think that your sole purpose here is trolling.

No one ever said the game's lying at every step of the game. However, if you haven't realized that Guild Wars lore is founded upon the principle of subjective truth, then you are blind. You cannot take every NPC's words at face value. If you do then you'll get no where because of the amount of contradicting NPCs. You have to compare the whole and find out what's right and not. There are some objective truths like the world map, or developer statements (the latter being objective truths until otherwise altered as their objective truths are not in game and thus can change), but most - including Franklin - NPCs speak subjective truths. Meaning there's some truth to what they say, and there's some falsehood too.

Saul's Story is one of the objective truths, as are the other BMP missions, because we're experiencing the actual event first hand - we're not being told about it. The White Mantle stating that Saul died during that time is a subjective truth, proven wrong by the objective truth. The statement that Janthir lies to the south is a subjective truth, proven wrong by the objective truth of the world map.

I believe your "one more possibility" was mentioned before and you previously dismissed it.

The description of charr as humans is ambient, not explicit.

How did I insult you when what I said was entirely true... you were unable to understand me. Does it matter whose fault it was? You seem like a very touchy person. I greatly enjoy talking to people like that.
Anyway, we've only had one species ever evolve into sapience, so we can't know if several such species would affect each other. What we can guess is that species with very different behaviours would probably not be affected to the amount the charr was under such a short period of time. What we definitely know is that it's very strange that while humans act as real-world humans in GW1, they also act like that in GW2, after being influenced by other races. Reasonably, the charr, asura, and norn should have affected us as much as we should have affected them, so if that behaviour-transfer theory is correct, GW2 humans would be less relatable to us than GW1 ones are.

You're going to have to explain why connected planes of existence means equal planes of existence (IIRC I went from Tyria to FoW on several occasions). You're also going to have to explain how being moved from one plane to another means that you don't stop existing in the first one.

Wait, the mists encompass all existence? So Tyria is in the mists too? Wouldn't that mean that Tyria is an equal plane of existence etc.?

Largos look smaller to me... And they don't hover. I don't think that the seers are the same as the mursaat, but that they are related in some way.
Calling me stupid is so weak of an insult that I honestly don't know what to do with it. Is this kindergarten?

Mythology is often true in Tyria, where gods and magic actually exists. But... Wait. You are saying that you don't see a problem with the "first south then north" thing, despite that the northward journey must not only have been longer, but also be the one that actually leads to the island... straight across territory that at that point very well might have been held by charr...? While at the same time admitting that there is a timing problem...??
Wouldn't a better way to deal with it be that Saul went off, in a roughly south or southwest direction, met some mursaat, either on Janthir (which would be Ring of Fire or tarnished coast), or some other island, or maybe not an island at all, got the eye, then came back and beat the charr, and admitting that putting Janthir in the north in GW2 was a lore mistake?
Well, or, everyone is lying about everything. Yes I dismissed that, but you seem willing to accept it. By the way, are we experiencing Saul's Story first hand? I thought it was just some investigation of history, not some time travel x Being John Malkovich kind of deal.

And how do you know what Tenad was thinking about the tomb? Maybe he knew it was empty.

[BuddhaKeks]

raspberry jam, on 21 December 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Because even in the mists, souls have some sort of form - not physical of course, but "physical" to that plane of existence. That form in itself have energy, separate from the energy of the soul itself, just as how it works in the physical world. That would also explain why minions give energy when they die... They are only form, no soul. IIRC.

Nope, they don't look human! You are right. Though I seem to recall that they looked human in the cutscenes.
And yes... no... we don't know where Dwayna took him, but likely to the mists. We don't know what part, though. Probably not the RoT.

No, GW2 charr are not the same as in GW1. They are much more relatable. You can call charr "furry orcs" in GW1, but that confuses the point... Orcs are not identical in every setting. Charr are only seen in one setting (or two, depending on how much you think the lore differs between GW1 and 2). If you, for example, say that GW1 charr are "furry LotR orcs", then no, they are not. You can try to boil them down to that, but there are differences. If you on the other hand say that GW1 charr are "furry orcs of an imaginary setting where orcs behave like GW1 charr" then yeah.
Saying that charr are catfaced humans is still different. Because "human" in that respect doesn't mean "GW1/2 human". It means "real world human". Yes, those two are different - real world humans have a much broader spectrum of societial structures and behaviours than in-game humans will ever have.

As you notice, I never use arguments like wearing clothes, using weapons, and certainly not ever using magic (using magic is not a human trait at all, when was the last time you cast Fireball?). That is your take on my words, an erroneous take that you likely made up to be able to argue your point - a classic tactic. I expected more from you, though. I could spend 40+ lines just kicking you around this thread for trying to use that trick against someone far more skilled in the art of rhetoric combat than yourself, but you know what? I won't, because you said you were having a hard year or something. You could use some slack.

Instead I'll have you explain how you can make a species more relatable without making them more human. Please be in depth about it and don't forget that not only do I know arguing better than you, I also know psychology better than you. In fact, I'll give you a pointer to where you can start. If you want to make something relatable, you need that something to build something resembling rapport.
And how would you do that? In a species?
Go on, now. Tell me.

And yes, it has already been established in this thread that you can come up with sapient species that are not human in nature (the examples so far are neogi from D&D Spelljammer and mycons from Star Control - I guess you can possibly add reapers from Mass Effect to that list). The classical way of coming up with species though is to take humanity and make a number of caricatures on it.

No, of course you don't mind racism. Got that cross and matches ready? But, yes, that charr are more human in nature in GW2 is a fact.

Then a necro can destroy a chair and get's energy. That doesn't even make sense, if he only has to destroy a "form", why would it even be called Soul Reaping? In the case of minions, it's simple, the necro has to invest his energy to create them, he get's some of it back when they die. And again, you ignored some of my points entirely in order to save your arguement. What is about the soul batteries the Mursaat used? They are batteries invented to store the energy that is a soul, not the energy that comes from ripping them out (as seen by the fact that the souls are actually stored in them). That whole thing with ripping them out to produce energy might sound more scientific, as a lot energy producing methods are simply bringing something from state into another, but in case of a game universe like GW's it makes things overly complicated. I'm still waiting for you to bring actual proof on this matter instead of just saying, it is so, because you think it is.

The souls in the river never looked human, sometimes human souls come out of them, but that does not proof that they are only made out of humans. Besides, it's not important if the dwarf was sent to the RoT, it's just important that he is send to the afterlife. The River of Souls flows through all parts of afterlife, in Nightfall he is just redirected to directly lead into the RoT. And again, there are for example centaurs in the FoW, which is also part of the Tyrian afterlife.

Yeah but orcs are always based on humans, so saying they are furry orcs is just like saying they are cat-faced humans. And no matter what you say, Prophecies Charr are based on humans, like every single freaking race ever created by humans. Which I have said several times now, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge. The fact that they use weapons, have armor and clothes, have a speaking language and pray to gods, are all things that make them human according to your logic. You said in another post: "Charr on the other hand act as humans. [...] Their emotions are those of humans. Even their social structures are like those found in human societies." All of this is correct in Prophecies. Wanting revenge for humans taking there homeland, oh like that didn't happen a dozen of time in earth's history, so check. Being religous fanatics, I don't think I have to find examples for this one. Social structure, is being led by a shaman caste, yes certainly a very human social structure, it's called theocracy. So according to you logic they are cat-faced humans.

That thing about the clothes, weapons and magic were things you used to defend your point earlier, if you want to lie, do it when nobody can proof that you did.
"The charr in GW1 are not just furry orcs because they have access to things that orcs in most settings do not. Most importantly their nature seems to be skewed: in some areas, they are neolithic - look at their clumsily made armors and swords; remember that human aesthetics is not just about our concept of beauty but also about practicality, implying that charr probably inject a social element like added respect or a mark of social ranking to the ability to wear an armor weighing 3-4 times as much as it should for the level of protection it gives - in others, they are more advanced than humans - few coherent settings would see orcs setting off something like the Searing, especially when humans did not have access to anything similar (except Orr's Cataclysm, and possibly that mysterious box in the crystal desert). We never see their abodes in Prophecies, but since they are furred animals, it was reasonable to assume that they live outdoors more than indoors, and that they would not use clothes except for ceremony or protection (armor)."

Besides twisting words of other people, is something your are doing the whole time, but better yet, you accuse me of doing it. Go please give me your 40+ lines of kicking me, I can't wait for it. I'm however not sure if that would bring you any sympathies from anyone. It's not like you still have much left after insulting people several times now. And if you think I have attacked you personally before, then I apologize, it wasn't done of purpose. You on the other hand have done that right now, for no reason, besides apparently having no arguement anymore.

And again, if you would read my posts, you would know that I have told you several times now. But okay, you have to argue versus so many people who disagree with you, I can see how got confused. Every single race is based on humanity. Every single race that was ever created. You can only make them alien to a certain point, making them relatable as playable race is going in the opposite direction. Does that mean if they are 100% relatable, that they are human? NO! There is whole freakign bunch of things I hate about humans, and I would not want to play a race that is exactly like humanity. Look at the Norn, they have many traits from humanity, but they are not humans (prefering to live as individuals, and not having a goverment, revering, but not worshipping the spirits of the wild etc). They are far more relatable when humans to me. They transcended humanity and became something better.

All the races you mentioned, the neogi, the mycons and the reapers, you know what? They were invented by humans, and as such can be boiled down to human traits. I admit you have to work harder there, and I also admit that I can't do it, because I simply lack the knowledge about the races. I no experience with Spelljammer or Star Control, and I have only played ME2 as of yet. That does however not mean that it is impossible to do.

Oh how very mature. I'm a racist now. I will let you know something. My grandfather opposed the Nazi regime and he was almost killed for it. In the very last minute he could flee the country. I come from a family that has always and will always stand against racism and fascism. You could not know that, but accusing me of being a racist, or even tolerating it, is one of the biggest insults you could possibly throw at me.

What I meant with I don't mind it, is that the word race has finally gained something possitve through fantasy-games. Yes it's technically not the correct term, but it has gained new meaning through usage. Something that is a natural phenomenon in language. So yes, I do not mind the term being used in games, because I don't see how anything bad could come from it. In fact it teaches new generations that variety is something good, and not something to fear. I bet that people who grew up with fantasy games, are much less prone to become racists as adults than any other one. That said, I still want you to apologize for that statement, as I said it's pretty much the biggest insult, not only to me, but my whole family. And I hope you choose your words wiser next time.

[raspberry jam]

BuddhaKeks, on 21 December 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Then a necro can destroy a chair and get's energy. That doesn't even make sense, if he only has to destroy a "form", why would it even be called Soul Reaping? In the case of minions, it's simple, the necro has to invest his energy to create them, he get's some of it back when they die. And again, you ignored some of my points entirely in order to save your arguement. What is about the soul batteries the Mursaat used? They are batteries invented to store the energy that is a soul, not the energy that comes from ripping them out (as seen by the fact that the souls are actually stored in them). That whole thing with ripping them out to produce energy might sound more scientific, as a lot energy producing methods are simply bringing something from state into another, but in case of a game universe like GW's it makes things overly complicated. I'm still waiting for you to bring actual proof on this matter instead of just saying, it is so, because you think it is.

The souls in the river never looked human, sometimes human souls come out of them, but that does not proof that they are only made out of humans. Besides, it's not important if the dwarf was sent to the RoT, it's just important that he is send to the afterlife. The River of Souls flows through all parts of afterlife, in Nightfall he is just redirected to directly lead into the RoT. And again, there are for example centaurs in the FoW, which is also part of the Tyrian afterlife.

Yeah but orcs are always based on humans, so saying they are furry orcs is just like saying they are cat-faced humans. And no matter what you say, Prophecies Charr are based on humans, like every single freaking race ever created by humans. Which I have said several times now, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge. The fact that they use weapons, have armor and clothes, have a speaking language and pray to gods, are all things that make them human according to your logic. You said in another post: "Charr on the other hand act as humans. [...] Their emotions are those of humans. Even their social structures are like those found in human societies." All of this is correct in Prophecies. Wanting revenge for humans taking there homeland, oh like that didn't happen a dozen of time in earth's history, so check. Being religous fanatics, I don't think I have to find examples for this one. Social structure, is being led by a shaman caste, yes certainly a very human social structure, it's called theocracy. So according to you logic they are cat-faced humans.

That thing about the clothes, weapons and magic were things you used to defend your point earlier, if you want to lie, do it when nobody can proof that you did.
"The charr in GW1 are not just furry orcs because they have access to things that orcs in most settings do not. Most importantly their nature seems to be skewed: in some areas, they are neolithic - look at their clumsily made armors and swords; remember that human aesthetics is not just about our concept of beauty but also about practicality, implying that charr probably inject a social element like added respect or a mark of social ranking to the ability to wear an armor weighing 3-4 times as much as it should for the level of protection it gives - in others, they are more advanced than humans - few coherent settings would see orcs setting off something like the Searing, especially when humans did not have access to anything similar (except Orr's Cataclysm, and possibly that mysterious box in the crystal desert). We never see their abodes in Prophecies, but since they are furred animals, it was reasonable to assume that they live outdoors more than indoors, and that they would not use clothes except for ceremony or protection (armor)."

Besides twisting words of other people, is something your are doing the whole time, but better yet, you accuse me of doing it. Go please give me your 40+ lines of kicking me, I can't wait for it. I'm however not sure if that would bring you any sympathies from anyone. It's not like you still have much left after insulting people several times now. And if you think I have attacked you personally before, then I apologize, it wasn't done of purpose. You on the other hand have done that right now, for no reason, besides apparently having no arguement anymore.

And again, if you would read my posts, you would know that I have told you several times now. But okay, you have to argue versus so many people who disagree with you, I can see how got confused. Every single race is based on humanity. Every single race that was ever created. You can only make them alien to a certain point, making them relatable as playable race is going in the opposite direction. Does that mean if they are 100% relatable, that they are human? NO! There is whole freakign bunch of things I hate about humans, and I would not want to play a race that is exactly like humanity. Look at the Norn, they have many traits from humanity, but they are not humans (prefering to live as individuals, and not having a goverment, revering, but not worshipping the spirits of the wild etc). They are far more relatable when humans to me. They transcended humanity and became something better.

All the races you mentioned, the neogi, the mycons and the reapers, you know what? They were invented by humans, and as such can be boiled down to human traits. I admit you have to work harder there, and I also admit that I can't do it, because I simply lack the knowledge about the races. I no experience with Spelljammer or Star Control, and I have only played ME2 as of yet. That does however not mean that it is impossible to do.

Oh how very mature. I'm a racist now. I will let you know something. My grandfather opposed the Nazi regime and he was almost killed for it. In the very last minute he could flee the country. I come from a family that has always and will always stand against racism and fascism. You could not know that, but accusing me of being a racist, or even tolerating it, is one of the biggest insults you could possibly throw at me.

What I meant with I don't mind it, is that the word race has finally gained something possitve through fantasy-games. Yes it's technically not the correct term, but it has gained new meaning through usage. Something that is a natural phenomenon in language. So yes, I do not mind the term being used in games, because I don't see how anything bad could come from it. In fact it teaches new generations that variety is something good, and not something to fear. I bet that people who grew up with fantasy games, are much less prone to become racists as adults than any other one. That said, I still want you to apologize for that statement, as I said it's pretty much the biggest insult, not only to me, but my whole family. And I hope you choose your words wiser next time.

I chair isn't living. It has no bond to break. Also, if you had a necro present when Ural dies, Dwayna can't take his soul because that necro did.
Soul batteries can still hold souls.

Good point and thank you for the river of souls and centaurs in FoW part (I can't believe how I forgot the forgemaster of all people!). This is the kind of thing I want to see.

Orcs are not based on humans in all settings. The original orcs (well, Tolkien's anyway, I don't know if they were the original, but I think so) were, but there are nonhuman versions of a race called "orc". Not all imagined sapient species are based on humans, which I have pointed out with example. You can ignore the examples at the cost of your integrity.

And no, I never said that using clothes or weapons was a human trait. You claim that I said so twice now.

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Stop doing that, it brings the discussion down to a level that I expected at least you to stand above. But you don't, do you? You care more about "winning" the argument than having an honest debate. You don't care about rational arguments, in fact you are more than willing to drop any sense of personal integrity as long as your point, no matter how false (and you know yourself that it is false, otherwise you would not stoop to these lows) prevails, even if that means eradicating truth and reason from these boards completely.

What you do is not only dishonest to me, not only dishonest to yourself. You have already proven that you don't care about either of those people. It is dishonest towards the Guild Wars community, more specifically to the lore-interested part of it, because you stand ready to intentionally sabotage any sort of rational debate as long as some assumption that you would like to be true is in even the slightest danger of being shown to be even in the slightest bit flawed. To that end, not only would you commit serious logical errors (which, to be honest, you cannot be blamed for, like a blind man cannot be blamed for not seeing), you also wilfully exaggerate and even change my words until they mean what you want them to mean - something that they never meant in the first place.

You, sir, are the most vile persWell I think that's 40+ lines if you read it on a phone. And you seem to think that I depend on other people having sympathy for me; I don't, actually I'm fairly sure that people like Konig has resentment for me for the reason that I don't particularly like GW2.

The things you mention does not make charr human: when I say that the charr have access to things that orcs in most settings don't, I refer to that orcs usually have a technological development sequence equal to that of humans (but they have made less progress on it usually). That is, orcs, like humans, invent thing X before they invent thing Y. Charr skipped ahead of humans at some points, and not in others. Their technological development is different from that of humans. Their reasoning (in Prophecies) for attacking the humans is based on revenge, but desire for revenge is present in many nonhuman animals. Blind trust in leaders (e.g. religion) is also present in many nonhuman animals. It is reasonable to expect sapient cats to harbor feelings of revenge as well as developing religions.

Hmm. You hate things about humanity? What do you hate exactly? As in, actually hate. Not just dislike. And, why would hate mean anything? Familiarity means more than amity does to relatability.

Wait, wait... The species I mentioned can be boiled down to caricatures of humanity because nothing? That's not how it works, chewy. It works like, you make a statement like that and then you explain why that is true. If you can't disprove an example, you have to accept it.

Also, you were the one saying that you don't mind racism. I have no idea why you said that, but you did.
And if you don't understand that accepting racial stereotypes in games make it easier to do so in real life - but only if you don't understand that - I humbly apologize, and would also ask you to spend some time thinking about why you would ever accept the way that different "races" (why aren't they called "species" again?) are presented in games.

Edited by raspberry jam, 21 December 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[BuddhaKeks]

raspberry jam, on 21 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I chair isn't living. It has no bond to break. Also, if you had a necro present when Ural dies, Dwayna can't take his soul because that necro did.
Soul batteries can still hold souls.

Good point and thank you for the river of souls and centaurs in FoW part (I can't believe how I forgot the forgemaster of all people!). This is the kind of thing I want to see.

Orcs are not based on humans in all settings. The original orcs (well, Tolkien's anyway, I don't know if they were the original, but I think so) were, but there are nonhuman versions of a race called "orc". Not all imagined sapient species are based on humans, which I have pointed out with example. You can ignore the examples at the cost of your integrity.

And no, I never said that using clothes or weapons was a human trait. You claim that I said so twice now.

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Stop doing that, it brings the discussion down to a level that I expected at least you to stand above. But you don't, do you? You care more about "winning" the argument than having an honest debate. You don't care about rational arguments, in fact you are more than willing to drop any sense of personal integrity as long as your point, no matter how false (and you know yourself that it is false, otherwise you would not stoop to these lows) prevails, even if that means eradicating truth and reason from these boards completely.

What you do is not only dishonest to me, not only dishonest to yourself. You have already proven that you don't care about either of those people. It is dishonest towards the Guild Wars community, more specifically to the lore-interested part of it, because you stand ready to intentionally sabotage any sort of rational debate as long as some assumption that you would like to be true is in even the slightest danger of being shown to be even in the slightest bit flawed. To that end, not only would you commit serious logical errors (which, to be honest, you cannot be blamed for, like a blind man cannot be blamed for not seeing), you also wilfully exaggerate and even change my words until they mean what you want them to mean - something that they never meant in the first place.

You, sir, are the most vile persWell I think that's 40+ lines if you read it on a phone. And you seem to think that I depend on other people having sympathy for me; I don't, actually I'm fairly sure that people like Konig has resentment for me for the reason that I don't particularly like GW2.

The things you mention does not make charr human: when I say that the charr have access to things that orcs in most settings don't, I refer to that orcs usually have a technological development sequence equal to that of humans (but they have made less progress on it usually). That is, orcs, like humans, invent thing X before they invent thing Y. Charr skipped ahead of humans at some points, and not in others. Their technological development is different from that of humans. Their reasoning (in Prophecies) for attacking the humans is based on revenge, but desire for revenge is present in many nonhuman animals. Blind trust in leaders (e.g. religion) is also present in many nonhuman animals. It is reasonable to expect sapient cats to harbor feelings of revenge as well as developing religions.

Hmm. You hate things about humanity? What do you hate exactly? As in, actually hate. Not just dislike. And, why would hate mean anything? Familiarity means more than amity does to relatability.

Wait, wait... The species I mentioned can be boiled down to caricatures of humanity because nothing? That's not how it works, chewy. It works like, you make a statement like that and then you explain why that is true. If you can't disprove an example, you have to accept it.

Also, you were the one saying that you don't mind racism. I have no idea why you said that, but you did.
And if you don't understand that accepting racial stereotypes in games make it easier to do so in real life - but only if you don't understand that - I humbly apologize, and would also ask you to spend some time thinking about why you would ever accept the way that different "races" (why aren't they called "species" again?) are presented in games.

A chair isn't lving, but a ghost in UW is? Also if you would actually take the time to read what I said, you wouldn't need to use the fancy tactic of twisting my words all the time. But let's go back and take a look shall we?

BuddhaKeks, on 19 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Oh you misunderstood me, I wasn't implying that necromancers destroy souls, I just said they can use a souls energy (probably taking some of it before releasing it to the mists).

It's funny how you accuse others of being a strawmen, yet you do it yourself all the time. But I will be the wiser man here. Not one of us can decide this, let the people decide who they think twists the others words more.

Yes orcs are based on humans, Tolkiens orcs are partly based on the industrial era, for example, with there complete disregard for nature. To understand this, you have to know that Tolkien loved nature more than anything else, especially trees, which were his favorite of god's creation as he might have put it. Polution was a disgrace for him and that's why the orcs are doing it. I'm not ignoring anything, I said several times that your statement is wrong, as all fictional races are based on humans in one way or another. With some it's more obvious, while others are more subtle.

You used weapons, armor and clothes to defend how Charr are different from orcs. I see no reason not to use your logic, to show you how ridiculous it is. No matter how many times you call me out for that, it's a legitimate tactic in a debate. I use the very basics of your arguements against you.

If I would care about "winning", why would I have offered to quit the arguement pages ago? Let's take another look:

BuddhaKeks, on 18 December 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

I for one stop having this argument with you, as I think you already have made up your mind and nothing I say could convince you of my point and pretty much nothing you say could convince me of yours. Have a nice day.

To which you replied:

raspberry jam, on 19 December 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Of course you stop having an argument with me. You're worried that when I make you actually look at your own opinions, they will stop making sense.

That's pretty much taunting me for no reason. And no, my view hasn't changed, the things you say make no sense to me. I can see where you are coming from and I even understand it, but I don't share these views and I have told you my reasons.

I think it's funny how you accuse me of dragging this arguement down, when you clearly started taunting me, just for the sake that I stay in the arguement. But that was still fine with me, no hard feelings. Until you started with the personal attacks.

Look again at LotR, the orcs are more developt than humans there. They only became the dumb muscle starting with D&D and to a much greater extent in Warhammer. The Warhammer orcs in turn influenced WarCraft's orcs, which in turn are now the "basis" for orcs. And you know what, they are based on humans too. Tribal society? Found in humans. Falling for false promises? Found in humans. Wanting to be left alone and fleeing from improsnment? Found in, you guessed it, humans. Please explain how after your logic orcs are not based on humans, I can't wait to see how much you will contradict yourself.

Oh and revenge is a emotion that can be found in cats? How do you know that? Can you read a cat's mind? Have you spoken to a cat? Only because a cat does something that to you looks like revenge doesn't mean it is. You are just projecting your human mindset on the cat, and interpret the animals action as revenge. The same reason why humans can't come up with 100% unhuman races, we will always use our mindset. I hope you will finally understand that now, after I wrote it a dozen times. And if you don't believe me, maybe you should stop claiming to know more about psychology than other people. It doesn't make you look smart, it just makes you look like a hypocrite.

Yes there are things I hate about humanity. For example how a whole nation can stand idle, while a few crazy leaders commit genocide. Or how people kidnap little girls and make them sexslaves. Just a few things that piss me off.

No, races can't be boiled down because nothing, I explained the reasons so often now, that even you should be able to get it by now. If not, well maybe you are lucky and Morgan Freeman will come by to explain it to you.

I explained already, I don't mind the term races being used in fantasy, and I don't mind them being based on human cultures. I'm sorry if it was unclear when I first said it, but calling other people racist, is clearly a personal attack and crossing the line. If you really wanted to have a clean discussion, you wouldn't have used this against me. Yet you did, showing that you lack any kind of dignity. Again, my view is biased here, so I let the neutral people who read this decide if it was me or you, who started to derail this.

This by the way was my final post in this topic, I see no basis for an ongoing discussion. And believe me, I'm not doing this because I think I'm wrong or I'm out of arguements. I could continue forever, if I wanted. I simply don't want, as you will just proceed to become more childish and insulting. If you think this is the correct way of having a debate, than I pitty you. Besides this, you may think that you will be butting heads less with other people, if you stay nice and leave them alone when they say they wont debate anymore with you. This is not only a tip for forums, but in general. Have a nice day.

[Archduke]

I must admit, I do miss the feel of GW1 and the lore obviously and undoubtedly had a huge impact on the "feeling" that was present in GW1. GW2 while it has it's own perks and unique feel (which I also love) I also can't help but feel like the devs suddenly changed opinions on a lot of things like the Charr. If it weren't for all the cities, landmarks and linked history, I wouldn't of known I was playing in the same world.

GW1 just had a more grimmy feeling.

But in the end, I love both games equally.

Edited by Archduke, 21 December 2012 - 08:36 PM.