Why are dragons the main villains of the game? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Lore

Why are dragons the main villains of the game?

Sir Arigius.6294Sir Arigius.6294 Member ✭✭
edited March 28, 2020 in Lore

Guild Wars 2 is a great game. I just have a few questions as to why anet picked dragons to be the main bad guys.

Why did Anet decide with going with slaying dragons as the main antagonists for the game?

There was a previous game that was designed in 2011 on the PS3 and X-Box 360 by Bethesda that had the player go around slaying dragons and absorbing dragon souls. I'm sure you know what game I'm hinting at. I just felt the plots were too identical.

Comments

  • Terra.9506Terra.9506 Member ✭✭

    From game play stand point IMO final battle between commander and Balthazar feel more fun and satisfy than final battle with any dragon we have before.(I also like Mordremoth fight but his design is ridiculous) Problem is dragon fight feel more cinematic than actual play since they're so big to fight in equal ground.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Arigius.6294 said:
    Guild Wars 2 is a great game. I just have a few questions as to why anet picked dragons to be the main bad guys.

    Why did Anet decide with going with slaying dragons as the main antagonists for the game?

    There was a previous game that was designed in 2011 on the PS3 and X-Box 360 by Bethesda that had the player go around slaying dragons and absorbing dragon souls. I'm sure you know what game I'm hinting at. I just felt the plots were too identical.

    Low effort way to milk what will probably be 10 years of an MMO without needing to come up with a new villain.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I don't know much about Gw2's development but they set up the Dragons in Gw1, at least Primordus, Kralkatorrik and Jormag anyway.
    The entire EoTN expansion was made to set the foundation for Gw2 while Gw2 was in development.

    Tbh im not sure how happy Anet were about this decision later on as many of us long time players know Zhaitan is well known for being a disappointing finale to the personal story and Living World season 1 seemed to go off on it's own at first before all being tied up with a plan to awaken a new Elder Dragon.

    After PoF and the whole story with Kralkatorrik I think it's a safe bet that Anet knows what they want to do with Elder Dragons now.
    Personally I am very happy with how Kralkatorrik and so far Jormag have been handled, fighting Kralkatorrik especially was a significantly better experience than fighting Zhaitan and Mordremoth and i'm very excited to see where this story goes with Jormag.. not to mention what Cantha is going to bring in the next expansion :)
    Exciting time to be a PvE story fan in Gw2 that's for sure.

  • @Sir Arigius.6294 said:
    Guild Wars 2 is a great game. I just have a few questions as to why anet picked dragons to be the main bad guys.

    Why did Anet decide with going with slaying dragons as the main antagonists for the game?

    There was a previous game that was designed in 2011 on the PS3 and X-Box 360 by Bethesda that had the player go around slaying dragons and absorbing dragon souls. I'm sure you know what game I'm hinting at. I just felt the plots were too identical.

    What Bethesda did was irrelevant, not the least because the Elder Dragon plotline was already being planned before Guild Wars Eye of the North came out in 2007, by the time Skyrim came out GW2 would have already been in alpha, or at least close to it, and it was simply too late to change anything.

    Hate Is Fuel.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    @Sir Arigius.6294 said:
    Guild Wars 2 is a great game. I just have a few questions as to why anet picked dragons to be the main bad guys.

    Why did Anet decide with going with slaying dragons as the main antagonists for the game?

    There was a previous game that was designed in 2011 on the PS3 and X-Box 360 by Bethesda that had the player go around slaying dragons and absorbing dragon souls. I'm sure you know what game I'm hinting at. I just felt the plots were too identical.

    Dragons are incredibly common enemies in all fantasy games and that certain other game no one has heard about ever before is as uninspired and plain as vikings with dragons (I mean you literally go to Valhalla). It has no plot to speak of. At least Anet tried to create something more interesting.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    Dragons are the personification of natural, untamed magic. In the western tradition, they are foes that need to be destroyed or domesticated and in eastern traditions they are to be understood and respected. In both cases though, they symbolize the power of nature and a connection to nature. In fantasy and hero journeys in general, they are often the source of deeper knowledge about how the world works. I think the studio went with dragons so they could tell a complex story about discovering deeper knowledge about the nature of Tyria. I am not sure if they started off knowing what Tyrian cosmology would look like. Some of their descriptions are hand-wavy magi-babble. I am cautiously optimistic that they have figured out a concrete model for the cosmos.

    all primes work and not tearing down has value
    ready purrlayer @ any parsed feels enhance the value of something that is already worth everything
    what other chordal approach but penultimate singing along with other quantum cuddle clocks

  • Stephen.6312Stephen.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    @Psientist.6437 said:
    Tyrian cosmology?

    I see this getting thrown around every now and then. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this and perhaps get into it a bit? It's terribly confusing otherwise.

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 30, 2020

    @Stephen.6312 said:

    @Psientist.6437 said:
    Tyrian cosmology?

    I see this getting thrown around every now and then. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this and perhaps get into it a bit? It's terribly confusing otherwise.

    Sure. It is a quick way to refer to Tyrian physics and the manifestation of Tyrian physics. The Tyrian universe seems to use gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism. When I use the term I am referring to the laws governing magic and how it manifests. I think most people are using it to refer to things such as the Mists, The All, the Elder dragon cycle, and the Eternal Alchemy; large scale phenomenon that, if the Tyrian universe were realistic, would emerge from natural laws.

    A "real world" example of how the term is being used here in Tyria would be the term "Christian cosmology" that includes God, Heaven, Hell, Earth and the eternal struggle between good and evil. The cosmology of the Star Wars universe would include the Light and Dark sides of the Force.

    I have some theories for Tyrian cosmology. Magic could be a form of matter that reacts to, or is given form by, will power. There would be a quantum magic field and magic particles/waves. Or, and this is my preferred cosmology, there is a Will field and it is the effects of Will that we confuse for magic. On a cosmological scale, Will would form emergent structures similar to how gravity, the weak and strong forces and electromagnetism form structures. A sufficiently powerful Will structure behaves in ways similar to a black hole. A black hole grabs hold of a virtual particle at its event horizon where sheer forces inject sufficient energy into the virtual particle making part of the virtual particle real. That's the basics of Hawkings radiation. A powerful Will structure would do something similar but with more sophisticated results. Magic is what we have been calling the manifestation of Will being used to pull matter and energy from the quantum ground state or zero point energy.

    all primes work and not tearing down has value
    ready purrlayer @ any parsed feels enhance the value of something that is already worth everything
    what other chordal approach but penultimate singing along with other quantum cuddle clocks

  • Trise.2865Trise.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Dude, Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim in 2011 wasn't even the first "slay the evil dragons" story in that series... (and was itself a knock-off Mega Man story, replacing the robots with dragons.)
    Perseus, Beowulf, Saint George, Susano-o, Sir Tristan, Bilbo Baggins, Super Mario, and thousands-to-millions of other fantasy protagonists and heroes would like a word with you.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_and_dragon

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    Low effort way to milk what will probably be 10 years of an MMO without needing to come up with a new villain.

    Yes. Tropes are, by definition, literary shortcuts. Good job, you're so smart and clever for noticing! Can you come up with other examples of literary shortcuts?

    If we want ANet to step up their game, then we must step up ours.

  • Stephen.6312Stephen.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    @Psientist.6437 said:

    @Stephen.6312 said:

    @Psientist.6437 said:
    Tyrian cosmology?

    I see this getting thrown around every now and then. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this and perhaps get into it a bit? It's terribly confusing otherwise.

    Sure. It is a quick way to refer to Tyrian physics and the manifestation of Tyrian physics. The Tyrian universe seems to use gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism. When I use the term I am referring to the laws governing magic and how it manifests. I think most people are using it to refer to things such as the Mists, The All, the Elder dragon cycle, and the Eternal Alchemy; large scale phenomenon that, if the Tyrian universe were realistic, would emerge from natural laws.

    A "real world" example of how the term is being used here in Tyria would be the term "Christian cosmology" that includes God, Heaven, Hell, Earth and the eternal struggle between good and evil. The cosmology of the Star Wars universe would include the Light and Dark sides of the Force.

    I have some theories for Tyrian cosmology. Magic could be a form of matter that reacts to, or is given form by, will power. There would be a quantum magic field and magic particles/waves. Or, and this is my preferred cosmology, there is a Will field and it is the effects of Will that we confuse for magic. On a cosmological scale, Will would form emergent structures similar to how gravity, the weak and strong forces and electromagnetism form structures. A sufficiently powerful Will structure behaves in ways similar to a black hole. A black hole grabs hold of a virtual particle at its event horizon where sheer forces inject sufficient energy into the virtual particle making part of the virtual particle real. That's the basics of Hawkings radiation. A powerful Will structure would do something similar but with more sophisticated results. Magic is what we have been calling the manifestation of Will being used to pull matter and energy from the quantum ground state or zero point energy.

    Thanks for sharing that.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 30, 2020

    Dragons (and slaying them) are one of the most popular fantasy tropes.
    Arenanet probably simply jumped on the trope train to attract as many potential players as possible.

  • Dragons are used because they are powerful, have a real body and still mystical.

    Even the european dragons were not ALL evil. There are, in some parts of Europe even legends of gift bearing dragons (bringing milk or gold into deserving homes). So dragons are versatile. They can be the embodiment of all that is evil, with powers off every chart, they can be benevolent elders, the power behind the throne, they can be nifty manipulators, they can be neither good nor evil, creatures of change.

    That is why dragons are so popular. They can be everything. But they are never weak.

    (on a side note, because mystical creatures: dwarfs and elves are either basically the same OR elves are actually undead evil forest spirits OR are earth elementals. Until Tolkien showed up and everyone copied from him. Everyone but Pratchett. The 'good elf' is a very, very recent invention. Also on a side note: sylvari are neither traditional 'elves', nor are they Tolkien 'elves' because they are not an elder race on the brink of extinction and beloved and pampered by the gods. The gw2 humans are Tolkien elves. In fact, the asura are the closest to traditional elves and dwarfs we can get in modern times. Sylvari are more related to Dryads and Elementals. ).

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 30, 2020

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:
    traditional 'elves'

    This is strongly offtopic, but:
    what even are traditional elves?
    The oldest mention of elves I know of comes in the 'form' of the Dökkálfar (Dark Elves) and Ljósálfar (Light Elves).
    And the only description I found of them is that one race of them lives in dark place (hence being called Dark Elves) deep below the surface, while the other lives in Alfheimr, the "first heaven". Neither of these races' descriptions hints at them being undead spirits or elementals.
    There have been scholarly debates on whether a third type of Elves called Svartálfar (black elves) or Myrkálfar (dusky/murky elves) are related to dwarves (who themselves were just a kind of maggot festering in the flesh of the giant Ymir before the gods bestowed reason onto them) or not.
    So, elves don't have a singular point of origin, but three.
    So, what are traditional Elves to you?

  • I think I wrote that already. But basically, everything but what Tolkien made of them.

  • Jimbru.6014Jimbru.6014 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 30, 2020

    @Psientist.6437 said:
    Sure. It is a quick way to refer to Tyrian physics and the manifestation of Tyrian physics. The Tyrian universe seems to use gravity...

    Until you start trying to reach vistas or do jumping puzzles. Then you learn the hard way that jumping in Tyria is kitten backwards from the real world. Instead of jumping with a running start like reality -- or the vast majority of other games ever -- GW2 instead requires you to jump UP first and THEN try to go forward. You also sometimes have to steer in midair, jump around corners, and other physical impossibilities. One of the most infuriating points of the GW2 game world IMHO.

  • Roche.7491Roche.7491 Member ✭✭
    edited May 11, 2020

    @Sir Arigius.6294 said:
    Guild Wars 2 is a great game. I just have a few questions as to why anet picked dragons to be the main bad guys.

    Why did Anet decide with going with slaying dragons as the main antagonists for the game?

    There was a previous game that was designed in 2011 on the PS3 and X-Box 360 by Bethesda that had the player go around slaying dragons and absorbing dragon souls. I'm sure you know what game I'm hinting at. I just felt the plots were too identical.

    Play GW1 and you will know.

    It’s a hype that has been built for years.
    Gw1 bosses
    Core Magical Mursat lore
    Core Boss necromancer
    Faction Boss assassin warrior
    Nightfall Boss god Abaddon
    Eye of the north Boss destroyers and hinting to the rise of elder dragons

    Their problem, the hype has already ended as soon as core gw2 hit. They should’ve showed all the dragons

    Let’s just hope we will beat Jormag this LS season and not the expansion. I hope we will fight another shiro alike this Cantha expansion

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 11, 2020

    @Sir Arigius.6294 said:
    Why are dragons the main villains of the game?

    I completely agree that it was a lazy decision and is a very boring idea in general. GW1's stories were much more compelling.

    @Roche.7491 said:
    Eye of the north Boss destroyers and hinting to the rise of elder dragons

    One single dragon story arc would have sufficed. Making every story arc about a dragon is just lame writing, sorry.

  • cptaylor.2670cptaylor.2670 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think all we've known of them is what we've seen. With Zhaitan we just saw this Conquerer of Death. We didn't really know what motives he had, if any. With Mordremoth, he seemed like a villain, but he even foreshadows during his speech of the meta fight about what we're doing. We didn't really learn about our impact until the next living season, and then with Kralk we started to learn more about the elder dragons. That they have other motives or forces, like Kralk did with the torment that drove him to behave the way he did.

    While most of the time it seems like it's kind of made up on the fly, there could have been a long-term plan in regards to the elder dragons that they're still building up. We're learning more about them, and I think as we move further with Jormag we'll learn that they're not just "villains" for the sake of being villains. The story is still evolving.

    As far as why they chose them to spotlight in the franchise, it's because they're monstrous powerful beings capable of building an entire franchise around. They're unknown, exciting, hard to understand. If you had to write a story and build a game around something, would you rather try to rewrite a story over and over again about the same politically motivated villain-type, or would you rather evolve a story around something completely unknown that gives you a broader scope? Sure, they could have made an entire expansion around, Joko, and in the end went with Balthazar, but between an undead lich and one of the six deities that sparked the rise of human civilization and a sideplot of an elder dragon, which do you think gives them more breathing room? They could have wrote a story about a leader of the Nightmare Court corrupting the dream instead of an elder dragon, but would that be as interesting?

    While I do think the plot is a bit rushed or hamfisted at times, or drawn out meaninglessly in others, you need a strong almost ethereal villain to make for a compelling story line in a story delivery like this. In nightfall, you had Abaddon, one of the six gods. In Factions, you had shiro who was empowered by another one of the six gods. In Eye of the North you had the destroyers.

    I mean, what would we have in their place at this point? Civil wars between humans? Civil wars between Charr or races warring against each other? Tyrannical rulers as the primary villains? It feels like they would just have to keep rewriting the same story over and over again? And yes, people will complain that the same thing is happening with the elder dragons because we keep killing them but in the grand scheme of things:

    We have Zhaitan, who we kill because we know little about the elder dragons and they just seem straight up evil. We continue on to Mordremoth, because we don't know any better. We then have a human god, and wind up having to save an elder dragon from said god, but then have to kill the elder dragon because it's consuming reality. Not because it's straight up evil and bent on conquering, but it seems like this natural force. We learn they're interwoven to the planet's balance. Now, we have one friendly elder dragon, and are still trying to discover the motives of another.

    It's a cumulative progressive plot that feels similar when examined individually, but collectively show a larger picture and tell a different story, one that's still progressing. Sure, you could supplement those elder dragons with something more familiar, like an evil leader or a war, but would it be as compelling or would you just find yourself asking the same question? If World of Warcraft hadn't introduced villains like the Lich King, Illidan, Deathwing, Sargeras, would they have been able to build an entire franchise around Orcs and Humans and had it become what it is today?

    It gives them a fresh take and something unique to this franchise, otherwise how is it any different from dungeons and dragons or any of the other cornucopia of other fantasy genre games.

    And to reiterate what someone else said previously, dragons have always been represented to be a varying in different stories. Good, evil, neutral. They're a mystical creature that can be molded into whatever they need it to be with ease. You can make a "god," sure, but how many times can you do that and make the plot feel different? An evil unicorn is pretty laughable. I suppose there are always Djinn and random elemental beings, but then you have to factor in and build on already existing lore. So there wasn't really a whole lot of places they could have taken the franchise outside of war between the races. Perhaps they could have invented something else, like more Mursaat, some evil Jotun faction, some larger baddie that to add that touch of mysticism and given a sense of unknown. I think it was just an opportunity for them to portray dragons in a different way. They're not gold-hoarding and greedy, or benevolent, they're forces of nature that are directly tied to the balance of the planet.

    On a sidenote, I believe some of the founders actually came over from Blizzard didn't they? I remember looking at a wow cosmology chart and thinking about how similar it felt to the eternal alchemy. Wow has their dragon aspects, which are each empowered by the titans and hold domain over certain aspects of magic. It feels like this is kind of a spin on a similar story, and while at times many may feel that the payoff is lame, but if you've followed World of Warcraft story development I feel like Arenanet has handled things a little bit better.

    Sure, we have Zhaitan getting blown to bits by an airship, and it was pretty unsatisfying, but we starved him and blinded him first.
    We had to find specific weaknesses for them that made sense for what they were.

    In World of Warcraft we had the dragon soul, a beam of light shot out of a golden disk that killed Deathwing.
    Then, we have a beam of light shot by the pantheon to imprison Sargeras.
    Then, we have a beam of light to kill N'zoth, one of the old gods.
    It's like all they know how to do to conclude a major villain is to just shoot a beam of light at it.

    In this game we have mystical beings with unique weaknesses and underlying plots. Even Balthazar we needed the help of Aurene and his own weapon to defeat him.

    This has gotten way off track, but the point is that I don't think the franchise would have made it this far without them, because it would have just felt like the same plot over and over again. A lot of you may already feel that way with the Elder Dragons, but I think you're looking at the larger picture with a magnifying glass instead of thinking about the progression and considering the possibilities with an open mind.

    I also whole heartedly believe that the current plot will be as simple as us killing Jormag and Aurene becoming more powerful. I'm not even convinced we'll kill Jormag, nor that we will befriend Jormag.

    The story isn't finished yet, and it's not just black and white/good vs evil. It's not conquerors or tyrants, it's an ecosystem. It's not just revenge or lust for power and domination, it's chaos and unknown.

  • Normally I would have defended A-bets descision with "The ED's are more primordial elementals than most traditional fantasy dragons." but that seems to have diminished with the humanising of them.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Normally I would have defended A-bets descision with "The ED's are more primordial elementals than most traditional fantasy dragons." but that seems to have diminished with the humanising of them.

    Being capable of communication isn't really humanizing. Nor is having a family - even Cthulhu has a daughter in the Lovecraftian mythos.

    I wouldn't say the Elder Dragons have been humanized at all. Being given a personality isn't being humanized, and I don't think they really delved deep enough into the motivations and opinions of Mordremoth or Kralkatorrik to truly humanize them, meanwhile Jormag is being presented as being incapable of understanding things from a mortal perspective with it "trying to save the world" but at the intentional cost of life, which is the opposite of humanizing while providing actual interaction.

    Zhaitan wasn't humanized, but he just... wasn't. The way it was presented was, well, no presentation ultimately. We got the presentation of its minions more than Zhaitan.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Normally I would have defended A-bets descision with "The ED's are more primordial elementals than most traditional fantasy dragons." but that seems to have diminished with the humanising of them.

    Being capable of communication isn't really humanizing. Nor is having a family - even Cthulhu has a daughter in the Lovecraftian mythos.

    Haumanizing someone or something means to make them more relatable. Cthulhu having a family doesn't make him more relatable than the blind idiot god Azathoth is after we know that Yog-Sothoth is it's grandson. They are both very unrelatable.

    I wouldn't say the Elder Dragons have been humanized at all. Being given a personality isn't being humanized, and I don't think they really delved deep enough into the motivations and opinions of Mordremoth or Kralkatorrik to truly humanize them, meanwhile Jormag is being presented as being incapable of understanding things from a mortal perspective with it "trying to save the world" but at the intentional cost of life, which is the opposite of humanizing while providing actual interaction.

    A relatable personality is automatically humanizing. It's the very definition of humanizing something. Having expressed relatable motivations further humanizes the ED's while having extremely relatable offspring even more-so. Kralk's expressed fear of a utopia without him to experience it is a very human and relatable fear. Expressing his fears to his children s very human. The very act of trying to save the world with "acceptable losses" is a classic trope that Jormag shares with human villains throughout various media. It's not the opposite of it, it's a classic trope example of humanizing a villain.

    Zhaitan wasn't humanized, but he just... wasn't. The way it was presented was, well, no presentation ultimately. We got the presentation of its minions more than Zhaitan.

    Agreed. Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal. He's the reason I would have initially defended A-nest descisions.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal.

    I wish they had stayed the forces of nature Arenanet originally depicted them as.

  • @Fueki.4753 said:

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal.

    I wish they had stayed the forces of nature Arenanet originally depicted them as.

    Me too. They were a rare take on dragons that only D&D got close to. But even D&D dragons are more reptilian than elemental. D&D dragons seem more element aligned than elemental. ED's aren't reptilian at all. Before they had relatable personalities, they just seemed like raw primeval forces of nature. More like unknowlable elder gods than traditional dragons. Now, they seem like you could transfer their consciousness into a playable race with no issues.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    I feel the starting story of each race had bosses or idea of what it could have been.

    Greater elementals. Giant beasts . Machines of war. Etc. Etc.. who knows.

    I don't mind dragons. But my guess in the end is, you unite and become one with a dragon . End of gw2. Or you kill your own dragon friend if she gets corrupted. And become the bad guy in gw3

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Haumanizing someone or something means to make them more relatable. Cthulhu having a family doesn't make him more relatable than the blind idiot god Azathoth is after we know that Yog-Sothoth is it's grandson. They are both very unrelatable.

    Right... and I don't see what piece of Kralkatorrik, Jormag, or Mordremoth is at all relateable. What's relatable to an creature capable of devouring all existence, literally fears nothing, foresees the future, wishes destruction and death on mortals, but loves his family?

    What's relatable to a creature who has stopped comprehending what the self is, and no longer has an actual body but isn't a ghost/spirit/whatever, and convinced he's literally the planet itself?

    What's relatable to a creature who is so far distanced from society that it believes killing and enslaving people is effectively a non-existent action, if not a direct act of salvation?

    If these Elder Dragons are relatable to anything, it's to unrelatable extremists and insane individuals with superiority complexes (it just isn't really a complex in their case since they are fundamentally superior to mortals).

    A relatable personality is automatically humanizing. It's the very definition of humanizing something. Having expressed relatable motivations further humanizes the ED's while having extremely relatable offspring even more-so. Kralk's expressed fear of a utopia without him to experience it is a very human and relatable fear. Expressing his fears to his children s very human. The very act of trying to save the world with "acceptable losses" is a classic trope that Jormag shares with human villains throughout various media. It's not the opposite of it, it's a classic trope example of humanizing a villain.

    Kralkatorrik didn't express fear - that was Glint's miscomprehension on Kralaktorrik. What he expressed is dislike (I'd say hate but the intensity of his dislike is debatable), and not necessarily on the "without him" part, and the expression of an emotion isn't humanizing. Sure, humans can express emotions, but so can any living being. It's "living-izing" not "humanizing".

    Jormag isn't "trying to save the world with acceptable losses". It's "Jormag's trying to save the world without understanding what saving means". There's a grand difference, because Jormag doesn't see it as "acceptable losses" - it doesn't see "losses" being present because they cannot comprehend that a death is a loss - unlike your "human villains throughout various media".

    The issue you have, it seems, isn't that the Elder Dragons are being humanized. It's that you're misunderstanding ANet's intended portrayal and you are humanizing them through that misunderstanding.

    Agreed. Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal. He's the reason I would have initially defended A-nest descisions.

    No, Zhaitan wasn't elemental. He - or, more specifically, his direct interaction - was non-existent except for a visual that could be replaced by literally anything. The lack of anything is indeed unrelatable, but it isn't "ancient eldritch being" either. It's just a visual target that moves. It can hardly be called a living being.

    Except that is just Zhaitan's final moments, when we see it directly. In the "behind the scenes" stuff, Zhaitan had a lot of personality and exposition through his minions. Zhaitan's desire to rule a nation, displacement of its former rulers into specialized scouts while everyone else retained their original duties (farmers farmed even as risen; fishers fish even as risen; nobles run parties even as risen; admirals lead navies, priests maintain the temples, etc. etc.), and also promoted eternal life through undeath.

    Zhaitan had personality and was no "mindless force of nature". Never was. And while less obvious, this personality is just as "relatable" as Kralkatorrik's, Mordremoth's, and Jormag's (which is to say: not at all unless you're insane and/or entirely detached from the scope of reality).

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal.

    I wish they had stayed the forces of nature Arenanet originally depicted them as.

    The irony is that they haven't really changed the Elder Dragons' depiction. In Edge of Destiny, Kralkatorrik is depicted the exact same we see him in Season 4's finale, except for a split personality. The hate of utopia, the desire to end or corrupt everything, and the sense of family were always there more or less.

    And though Zhaitan never actually spoke, as mentioned, it was never a mere force of nature - it always had goals, tactics, and personality, which was displayed through its minions.

    It's just that the body of Zhaitan itself, for the sense of gameplay, was nothing but a visual.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Dustfinger.9510Dustfinger.9510 Member ✭✭
    edited May 13, 2020

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Right... and I don't see what piece of Kralkatorrik, Jormag, or Mordremoth is at all relateable. What's relatable to an creature capable of devouring all existence, literally fears nothing, foresees the future, wishes destruction and death on mortals, but loves his family?

    What's relatable to a creature who has stopped comprehending what the self is, and no longer has an actual body but isn't a ghost/spirit/whatever, and convinced he's literally the planet itself?

    What's relatable to a creature who is so far distanced from society that it believes killing and enslaving people is effectively a non-existent action, if not a direct act of salvation?

    If these Elder Dragons are relatable to anything, it's to unrelatable extremists and insane individuals with superiority complexes (it just isn't really a complex in their case since they are fundamentally superior to mortals).

    Listing all the unrelatable qualities is an effort of sleight of hand. It does nothing to detract from all the relatable qualities. Loving his family is relatable. You named it right away. Extremists aren't unrelatable. You freely attributed a very human aspect onto ED's. An aspect that has repeated itself throughout history. That should be a clue.

    Kralkatorrik didn't express fear - that was Glint's miscomprehension on Kralaktorrik. What he expressed is dislike (I'd say hate but the intensity of his dislike is debatable), and not necessarily on the "without him" part, and the expression of an emotion isn't humanizing. Sure, humans can express emotions, but so can any living being. It's "living-izing" not "humanizing".

    What's your source that the word "terrified" is inaccurate? "Terror" is a hard emotion to confuse with simple "dislike" from someone like Glint who is familiar with ED emotions.

    Jormag isn't "trying to save the world with acceptable losses". It's "Jormag's trying to save the world without understanding what saving means". There's a grand difference, because Jormag doesn't see it as "acceptable losses" - it doesn't see "losses" being present because they cannot comprehend that a death is a loss - unlike your "human villains throughout various media".

    The issue you have, it seems, isn't that the Elder Dragons are being humanized. It's that you're misunderstanding ANet's intended portrayal and you are humanizing them through that misunderstanding.

    I'm curious to know what your personal definition of humanizing is as it pertains to literature. Also, do you have a quote for A-nets "intended portrayal"?

    Agreed. Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal. He's the reason I would have initially defended A-nest descisions.

    No, Zhaitan wasn't elemental. He - or, more specifically, his direct interaction - was non-existent except for a visual that could be replaced by literally anything. The lack of anything is indeed unrelatable, but it isn't "ancient eldritch being" either. It's just a visual target that moves. It can hardly be called a living being.

    Except that is just Zhaitan's final moments, when we see it directly. In the "behind the scenes" stuff, Zhaitan had a lot of personality and exposition through his minions. Zhaitan's desire to rule a nation, displacement of its former rulers into specialized scouts while everyone else retained their original duties (farmers farmed even as risen; fishers fish even as risen; nobles run parties even as risen; admirals lead navies, priests maintain the temples, etc. etc.), and also promoted eternal life through undeath.

    Zhaitan had personality and was no "mindless force of nature". Never was. And while less obvious, this personality is just as "relatable" as Kralkatorrik's, Mordremoth's, and Jormag's (which is to say: not at all unless you're insane and/or entirely detached from the scope of reality).

    Sounds like you're describing Zaitan being humanized while denying that the ED's are humanized. Possibly, you think only human like beings can be humanized in literature.

    Edit:

    A-nets initial elemental portrayal of ED's with the subsequent expressed purpose of slowly turning them into actual people:

    Dragons have long been thought to be as much a part of Tyria as the sun, moon, land, and seas. - "The Nature of Dragons" by Ogden Stonehealer (Described as elemental)

    One of our slow changes to the world over [Living World Season 4] has been that dragons are not crazed wild animals with no rationality. They are actual people. And Aurene is our window into that. That's how the Commander and everybody else knows it because now they know Aurene, they know a dragon the way they never knew one before.-^ Guild Chat Episode 85 -War Eternal Tom Abernathy (A-nets stated goal of slowly portraying them as "actual people".)

  • @Sir Arigius.6294 said:
    Guild Wars 2 is a great game. I just have a few questions as to why anet picked dragons to be the main bad guys.

    Why did Anet decide with going with slaying dragons as the main antagonists for the game?

    There was a previous game that was designed in 2011 on the PS3 and X-Box 360 by Bethesda that had the player go around slaying dragons and absorbing dragon souls. I'm sure you know what game I'm hinting at. I just felt the plots were too identical.

    Cuz their bastards and bastards need to die!

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    The irony is that they haven't really changed the Elder Dragons' depiction. In Edge of Destiny, Kralkatorrik is depicted the exact same we see him in Season 4's finale, except for a split personality. The hate of utopia, the desire to end or corrupt everything, and the sense of family were always there more or less.

    Neither the final version of Zhaitan that was shipped, nor the Kralkatorrik in the novel were the first or even part of the earliest depictions of Elder Dragons.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Right... and I don't see what piece of Kralkatorrik, Jormag, or Mordremoth is at all relateable. What's relatable to an creature capable of devouring all existence, literally fears nothing, foresees the future, wishes destruction and death on mortals, but loves his family?

    What's relatable to a creature who has stopped comprehending what the self is, and no longer has an actual body but isn't a ghost/spirit/whatever, and convinced he's literally the planet itself?

    What's relatable to a creature who is so far distanced from society that it believes killing and enslaving people is effectively a non-existent action, if not a direct act of salvation?

    If these Elder Dragons are relatable to anything, it's to unrelatable extremists and insane individuals with superiority complexes (it just isn't really a complex in their case since they are fundamentally superior to mortals).

    Listing all the unrelatable qualities is an effort of sleight of hand. It does nothing to detract from all the relatable qualities. Loving his family is relatable. You named it right away. Extremists aren't unrelatable. You freely attributed a very human aspect onto ED's. An aspect that has repeated itself throughout history. That should be a clue.

    It's not really a sleight of hand when the unrelatable qualities are the primary qualities. The ones you listed are either not actual qualities, misconceptions presented by other characters and not the ones in actual question, or are minor qualities.

    Sure, Kralkatorrik having compassion for his family is relatable, but this is something relatable for anything that lives and breaths (or once did at some point). It's something any animal you come across will be capable of showing. It isn't "humanizing", it's "living-izing".

    Kralkatorrik didn't express fear - that was Glint's miscomprehension on Kralaktorrik. What he expressed is dislike (I'd say hate but the intensity of his dislike is debatable), and not necessarily on the "without him" part, and the expression of an emotion isn't humanizing. Sure, humans can express emotions, but so can any living being. It's "living-izing" not "humanizing".

    What's your source that the word "terrified" is inaccurate? "Terror" is a hard emotion to confuse with simple "dislike" from someone like Glint who is familiar with ED emotions.

    Kralkatorrik: Your mother assumed that my vision...
    Aurene: She thought it terrified you.
    Kralkatorrik: Nothing terrifies an Elder Dragon.
    Kralkatorrik: Not even death.

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Descent#In_the_cave

    That's my source.

    Glint claimed Kralkatorrik feared the vision.

    Glint was wrong.

    Jormag isn't "trying to save the world with acceptable losses". It's "Jormag's trying to save the world without understanding what saving means". There's a grand difference, because Jormag doesn't see it as "acceptable losses" - it doesn't see "losses" being present because they cannot comprehend that a death is a loss - unlike your "human villains throughout various media".

    The issue you have, it seems, isn't that the Elder Dragons are being humanized. It's that you're misunderstanding ANet's intended portrayal and you are humanizing them through that misunderstanding.

    I'm curious to know what your personal definition of humanizing is as it pertains to literature. Also, do you have a quote for A-nets "intended portrayal"?

    Agreed. Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal. He's the reason I would have initially defended A-nest descisions.

    No, Zhaitan wasn't elemental. He - or, more specifically, his direct interaction - was non-existent except for a visual that could be replaced by literally anything. The lack of anything is indeed unrelatable, but it isn't "ancient eldritch being" either. It's just a visual target that moves. It can hardly be called a living being.

    Except that is just Zhaitan's final moments, when we see it directly. In the "behind the scenes" stuff, Zhaitan had a lot of personality and exposition through his minions. Zhaitan's desire to rule a nation, displacement of its former rulers into specialized scouts while everyone else retained their original duties (farmers farmed even as risen; fishers fish even as risen; nobles run parties even as risen; admirals lead navies, priests maintain the temples, etc. etc.), and also promoted eternal life through undeath.

    Zhaitan had personality and was no "mindless force of nature". Never was. And while less obvious, this personality is just as "relatable" as Kralkatorrik's, Mordremoth's, and Jormag's (which is to say: not at all unless you're insane and/or entirely detached from the scope of reality).

    Sounds like you're describing Zaitan being humanized while denying that the ED's are humanized. Possibly, you think only human like beings can be humanized in literature.

    You seem to be under the perception that a personality = humanizing. That's where we're in disagreement. If we're talking the textbook definition, it's merely "make (something) more humane or civilized." Which is not how I would describe the Elder Dragons; though such a definition is a little too generic, and the second meaning of "give (something) a human character" is even moreso (and more inaccurate).

    The issue I have with people who complain about the Elder Dragons being "humanized" is that the things which they complain about are stuff - as mentioned above - that any sapient living being may have, and is not a trait unique to humans - thus it is neither making the character more humane or civilized, nor is it giving a human character. It is merely making them more of a living sapient being.

    You don't need to have a character be without any kind of personality at all to avoid being humanized.

    Personality != humanizing

    Emotion != humanizing

    Simple as that.

    Also, obviously non-humans can be humanized in literature.

    A-nets initial elemental portrayal of ED's with the subsequent expressed purpose of slowly turning them into actual people:

    Dragons have long been thought to be as much a part of Tyria as the sun, moon, land, and seas. - "The Nature of Dragons" by Ogden Stonehealer (Described as elemental)

    One of our slow changes to the world over [Living World Season 4] has been that dragons are not crazed wild animals with no rationality. They are actual people. And Aurene is our window into that. That's how the Commander and everybody else knows it because now they know Aurene, they know a dragon the way they never knew one before.-^ Guild Chat Episode 85 -War Eternal Tom Abernathy (A-nets stated goal of slowly portraying them as "actual people".)

    Here's your issue: from day one, it has always been ANet using Tyria's perception of the Elder Dragons to make them literal blank templates of devastation behind the army. But if you delved into the lore from day one, that wasn't ever the case - Edge of Destiny novel gave Kralkatorrik almost as much personality and "humanizing aspects" (from your perspective) as Season 4 does.

    Complaining that the Elder Dragons is being personified, is kind of like after watching Lord of the Rings you read the Silmarillion and then complain that Sauron is more than just a floating eyeball on a tower.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    The irony is that they haven't really changed the Elder Dragons' depiction. In Edge of Destiny, Kralkatorrik is depicted the exact same we see him in Season 4's finale, except for a split personality. The hate of utopia, the desire to end or corrupt everything, and the sense of family were always there more or less.

    Neither the final version of Zhaitan that was shipped, nor the Kralkatorrik in the novel were the first or even part of the earliest depictions of Elder Dragons.

    Nope, they are. Unless you're referring to The Movement of the World which has... literally nothing on the Elder Dragons besides "they woke up and wrecked kitten" (and even then, it's from the fallible perspective of someone who never interacted with an Elder Dragon), or us seeing Primordus and Kralkatorrik in GW1, but that's just seeing a motionless, sleeping body and has nothing to do with their actions or, more importantly, interactions.

    Edge of Destiny was the first official product depicting interaction with the Elder Dragons, and Zhaitan in the personal story was the second such case.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Dustfinger.9510Dustfinger.9510 Member ✭✭
    edited May 13, 2020

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    Here's your issue: from day one, it has always been ANet using Tyria's perception of the Elder Dragons to make them literal blank templates of devastation behind the army. But if you delved into the lore from day one, that wasn't ever the case - Edge of Destiny novel gave Kralkatorrik almost as much personality and "humanizing aspects" (from your perspective) as Season 4 does.

    Complaining that the Elder Dragons is being personified, is kind of like after watching Lord of the Rings you read the Silmarillion and then complain that Sauron is more than just a floating eyeball on a tower.

    You initially said my issue was misunderstanding A-nets intended representation. I just provided proof that my understanding of A-nets intended representation was absolutley correct. They intended to compare the ED's as forces of nature and they directly did so. Then they intended to slowly show and tell us that ED's aren't things of irrationality as they initially intended to show them but that they are "actual people."

    Ergo: They definitively intended to humanized them over time, from irrational primordial beast comparable to forces of nature. Word of god has confirmed that I am right. My poin was that I disagree with that chosen direction. IMO, they should have been kept as irrational forces of nature.

    edit: Aslo, you artfully avoided providing a definition for what YOU would consider humanizing something in literature. I'm interested to see if your actual standards hold up against they types of things you've personally disqualified.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 13, 2020

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    They intended to compare the ED's as forces of nature and they directly did so. Then they intended to slowly show and tell us that ED's aren't things of irrationality as they initially intended to show them but that they are "actual people."

    They intended to have Tyrian's indifferent to the ED threat by comparing them to distant forces of nature and directly did so, while having our first confrontations with the ED showing that such view is incorrect. Then they intended to slowly show and tell us that EDs aren't blank slates as Tyrians believe but that they are sapient entities that are only partially comprehensible.

    FTFY

    I mean, they literally showed what you proclaim to be "humanizing" in Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik with our first interactions of them back in 2010 and 2012. Any "things of irrationality" was... non-existent. The Movement of the World doesn't depict them as "things of irrationality", nor did any interview, the trailers, or the first few interactions of the dragon minions.

    I'm not sure where you got this "things of irrationality" from. Forces of nature? Yeah, that's literally how the Zephyrites who knew nothing described them. After we had already learned that wasnt' true. It's called unreliable narrator, and ANet used it a lot in building up GW2.

    But "becoming partially comprehensible" is not the same as humanizing.

    Complaining about the Elder Dragons being given personality at this point, is like complaining about making Elder Dragons non-binary genders because of social movements - the Elder Dragons were stated to be genderless (thus non-binary) back in 2010 before any such social movements gained steam. Similarly, the Elder Dragons had personality back in 2010 and 2012 for Kralkatorrik, Jormag, and Zhaitan respectively.

    BTW, "not crazed wild animals with no rationality" != "they are actual people".

    edit: Aslo, you artfully avoided providing a definition for what YOU would consider humanizing something in literature. I'm interested to see if your actual standards hold up against they types of things you've personally disqualified.

    Because, honestly, I'm not entirely sure how to word it. But it certainly is not the act of giving something emotion or personality.

    For the record, I would also disagree with your previous statement that extremists are relatable. Comprehensible, yes. But not relatable.

    I can comprehend where Richmond Valentine from the Kingsman movie was coming from with his views and beliefs, but I could never relate to that. Similarly, I can comprehend where a bitter old white supremacist racist who hates all non-whites is coming from, but I could never, ever relate to such kitten beliefs.

    There's another thing I would bring into contention with your statements, and that is that human villains can be dehumanized - and I would argue the extremists and similar villains that you had once compared the Elder Dragons to are, in fact, dehumanized. While they may be human entities in literature, they do n

    For the record, dehumanization is "the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities."

    If we were to use textbook definitions, then "humanizing" is simply "civilized and holding positive qualities" while "dehumanizing" is "uncivilized and lacking positive qualities". Which would actually mark Kralkatorrik as the only Elder Dragon with any level of humanizing (via his love of family), but at the same time by creating a notable dislike of peace, mortals, and eventually his own existence, Kralkatorrik is simultaneously dehumanized in the very instance that gave him a humanizing trait.

    Meanwhile, so far, Jormag, Zhaitan, and Mordremoth, despite being given personalities, have simply been dehumanized through those personalities - for they are deprived of "positive human qualities" and were never made "civilized".

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    They intended to compare the ED's as forces of nature and they directly did so. Then they intended to slowly show and tell us that ED's aren't things of irrationality as they initially intended to show them but that they are "actual people."

    They intended to have Tyrian's indifferent to the ED threat by comparing them to distant forces of nature and directly did so, while having our first confrontations with the ED showing that such view is incorrect. Then they intended to slowly show and tell us that EDs aren't blank slates as Tyrians believe but that they are sapient entities that are only partially comprehensible.

    FTFY

    I mean, they literally showed what you proclaim to be "humanizing" in Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik with our first interactions of them back in 2010 and 2012. Any "things of irrationality" was... non-existent. The Movement of the World doesn't depict them as "things of irrationality", nor did any interview, the trailers, or the first few interactions of the dragon minions.

    I'm not sure where you got this "things of irrationality" from. Forces of nature? Yeah, that's literally how the Zephyrites who knew nothing described them. After we had already learned that wasnt' true. It's called unreliable narrator, and ANet used it a lot in building up GW2.

    But "becoming partially comprehensible" is not the same as humanizing.

    Complaining about the Elder Dragons being given personality at this point, is like complaining about making Elder Dragons non-binary genders because of social movements - the Elder Dragons were stated to be genderless (thus non-binary) back in 2010 before any such social movements gained steam. Similarly, the Elder Dragons had personality back in 2010 and 2012 for Kralkatorrik, Jormag, and Zhaitan respectively.

    BTW, "not crazed wild animals with no rationality" != "they are actual people".

    So, they intended to initially portray them as elemental. Then to further develop them as "actual people". No matter how you try to rationalize it, my understanding is exactly what they wanted for the fans. And I prefer the initial representation. Simple as that. You don't need to agree with me but lets not pretend that my understanding was something that was never intended. Becasue I have proven that it was exactlty what A-net intended. Despite what you initially argued. shrug

    edit: Aslo, you artfully avoided providing a definition for what YOU would consider humanizing something in literature. I'm interested to see if your actual standards hold up against they types of things you've personally disqualified.

    Because, honestly, I'm not entirely sure how to word it. But it certainly is not the act of giving something emotion or personality.

    Then there's nothing more to say about it becasue we have no metric to determine if your arguement holds up to your own personal arbitrary standards. Either way, I don't go by your personal, nebulous standards in my conversation. Not just becasue you can't even lay them out, but because communication goes smoother for everybody when we use widely accepted, standard definitions. So, I find dictionary definitions to be more useful.

  • Aracz.4702Aracz.4702 Member ✭✭

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    So, they intended to initially portray them as elemental. Then to further develop them as "actual people". No matter how you try to rationalize it, my understanding is exactly what they wanted for the fans. And I prefer the initial representation. Simple as that. You don't need to agree with me but lets not pretend that my understanding was something that was never intended. Becasue I have proven that it was exactlty what A-net intended. Despite what you initially argued. shrug

    It isn't a change in direction, but a plot-twist. That were characters in game who depicted Dragons as forces of nature, intentionally by devs, to give more deepth to the story. But devs showed us that they intended those npcs to be wrong - and it's just a plot device. Environmental storytelling always pointed that dragons are sapient - if what Konig told isn't enough, I'll point at story of Svanir and Sons of Svanir. Is persuasion a force of nature, or it must be performed by someone intelligent and wise? It appears already in low lvl map, and that was first thing in core game that made me think that something is wrong with those "forces of nature"

  • Dustfinger.9510Dustfinger.9510 Member ✭✭
    edited May 14, 2020

    @Aracz.4702 said:
    It isn't a change in direction, but a plot-twist. That were characters in game who depicted Dragons as forces of nature, intentionally by devs, to give more deepth to the story. But devs showed us that they intended those npcs to be wrong - and it's just a plot device. Environmental storytelling always pointed that dragons are sapient - if what Konig told isn't enough, I'll point at story of Svanir and Sons of Svanir. Is persuasion a force of nature, or it must be performed by someone intelligent and wise? It appears already in low lvl map, and that was first thing in core game that made me think that something is wrong with those "forces of nature"

    In fantasy, forces of nature are often sapient. Cthulhu is often sapient. He isn't often humanized though. We always knew ED's had their own will. What Konig told isn't enough becasue it doesn't actually address my post. I found and provided the quote that has them laying out what was always intended. I stated that I prefer them how they were initially portayed. As living, elemental forces of nature with a will. But without being very relatable. This is my preference. Saying that it was always the plan doesn't change that. I understand full well that this was always the plan, as I'm the one who provided the confirmation. My contention with what Konig responded was his insistence that they were never initially portrayed as elemental. And then that they were never humanized. But, word of God soundly addressed that.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Cthulhu isn't a force of nature though. It's just a force that's beyond humans. I do find it funny how you can think that Cthulhu being sapient and having a personality is not humanizing, while the Elder Dragons being sapient and having a personality is.

    I could understand where you're coming from if your only argument was Kralkatorrik being humanized. Because to a small degree he was, but was also dehumanized in other aspects at the same time.

    Communication and personality is not the same as humanizing or making something "actual people" (what does that even mean? Obviously the Elder Dragons are being turned human...).

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    I understand full well that this was always the plan, as I'm the one who provided the confirmation. My contention with what Konig responded was his insistence that they were never initially portrayed as elemental. And then that they were never humanized. But, word of God soundly addressed that.

    They were "initially" portrayed as elemental, if by such you entirely refer to what basically equates to the blurb on the back of a book, only for this to be proven false by the second chapter of the book. Which is to say, they actually weren't.

    They were more than "elemental" or "mindless forces of nature" before the end of the personal story - or, really, before the game launched. I used the direct relations, but Aracz is correct in pointing out the Sons of Svanir too, and their interactions with Jormag.

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Then there's nothing more to say about it becasue we have no metric to determine if your arguement holds up to your own personal arbitrary standards. Either way, I don't go by your personal, nebulous standards in my conversation. Not just becasue you can't even lay them out, but because communication goes smoother for everybody when we use widely accepted, standard definitions. So, I find dictionary definitions to be more useful.

    And you can't even go by the textbook definition, which I had begun arguing for since I have issues finding the proper words to describe how I interpret "humanizing" a character. Best I could do, would be to say "humanizing is the act of making them relatable". But apparently you're capable of relating to someone who is perfectly fine with wiping out millions for the sake of the species, or something silly like that, so that definition wouldn't even work for you - under that kind of mindset, even Cthulhu that has been brought up would be relatable.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Dustfinger.9510Dustfinger.9510 Member ✭✭
    edited May 14, 2020

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Cthulhu isn't a force of nature though. It's just a force that's beyond humans. I do find it funny how you can think that Cthulhu being sapient and having a personality is not humanizing, while the Elder Dragons being sapient and having a personality is.

    I could understand where you're coming from if your only argument was Kralkatorrik being humanized. Because to a small degree he was, but was also dehumanized in other aspects at the same time.

    Communication and personality is not the same as humanizing or making something "actual people" (what does that even mean? Obviously the Elder Dragons are being turned human...).

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    I understand full well that this was always the plan, as I'm the one who provided the confirmation. My contention with what Konig responded was his insistence that they were never initially portrayed as elemental. And then that they were never humanized. But, word of God soundly addressed that.

    They were "initially" portrayed as elemental, if by such you entirely refer to what basically equates to the blurb on the back of a book, only for this to be proven false by the second chapter of the book. Which is to say, they actually weren't.

    They were more than "elemental" or "mindless forces of nature" before the end of the personal story - or, really, before the game launched. I used the direct relations, but Aracz is correct in pointing out the Sons of Svanir too, and their interactions with Jormag.

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:
    Then there's nothing more to say about it becasue we have no metric to determine if your arguement holds up to your own personal arbitrary standards. Either way, I don't go by your personal, nebulous standards in my conversation. Not just becasue you can't even lay them out, but because communication goes smoother for everybody when we use widely accepted, standard definitions. So, I find dictionary definitions to be more useful.

    And you can't even go by the textbook definition, which I had begun arguing for since I have issues finding the proper words to describe how I interpret "humanizing" a character. Best I could do, would be to say "humanizing is the act of making them relatable". But apparently you're capable of relating to someone who is perfectly fine with wiping out millions for the sake of the species, or something silly like that, so that definition wouldn't even work for you - under that kind of mindset, even Cthulhu that has been brought up would be relatable.

    thumbsup

  • Gundahar.2765Gundahar.2765 Member ✭✭

    Dragons are part of most cultures mythology, Ancient Greek and Roman (Typhon, Python, Lernaean Hydra, Cetus), Egyptian (Apep, Nehebkhau), Germanic/norse (Jormungandr, Fafnir, Nidhogg, Lagarfljotsormurinn), South Asian (Vritra, Visvarupa, Azhi Dahaka, Druk), Asian (Zhulong, Naga, Imugis, Orochi, Watatsumi, Mizuchi, Kuzuryu), Aztec (Quetzalcoatl, Xiuhcoatl), Mayan (Kukulkan, Q'uq'umatz) and most of them are elemental, water predominantly, fire and thunder.
    Even the Bible has it's Hebrew dragons Leviathan, Yam, Lotan and ultimately Satan himself that is depicted as the ancient serpent/dragon, or in the folklore as a humanoid shaped dragon with horns, tail and sharp teeth. I find it interesting how GW2 Zaithan pronunciation resembles Satan, we know GW2 lore creatures are inspired from all cultures and mythologies.
    So there you have it, no wonder why dragons are popular.

  • Tails.9372Tails.9372 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 19, 2020

    Why are dragons the main villains of the game?

    Are they? It's implied that there is something else going on.