Legendary weapons lore — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Legendary weapons lore

Raven.1524Raven.1524 Member ✭✭✭

So, I believe everyone knows that developing lore and story for old content simply consumes time and resources.
But would it be a bad idea if people could submit fan stories about the origin of specific legendary weapons and have some partners (maybe some youtubers willing to help and others) could help judging a winner to have it implemented inside a game library like the one on Divinity's Reach, inside a dungeon, etc?
I'm thinking of simply 1 little readable book, nothing big.

<13

Comments

  • @Felipe.1807 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Claw of Khan Ur being legendary weapon delivered in the current system is slap in the face to every lore freak. I'm out.

    I think its cool, if we gonna get some legendary weapon, might aswell be an actual weapon with lore and stuff, and not some random Quaggan Shield lol

    I think they at least tried to release weapon that's related to specfic episode theme.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:
    Everything seem to be a slap in the face of people these days.

    This comment is a slap in the face.
    Jk, I agree. Lots of threads recently mention a metaphorical slap in the face.

    If you don’t like the dagger, don’t craft it.
    It’s a replica weapon, like Flameseeker Prophecies, Fiery Dragon Sword etc.

    I like the dagger. I hate aquisition method. It destroys lore.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Claw of Khan Ur being legendary weapon delivered in the current system is slap in the face to every lore freak. I'm out.

    Iirc the legendaries u get from zommoros' are copies of the originals.

    The display of multiple legendaries in his lair and also a boss in arah having twilight further supports that theory.

    Copies of what exactly. Because only few legendaries have any lore tied to them. Also... every player in GW2 is same person in lore - the Commander.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Claw of Khan Ur being legendary weapon delivered in the current system is slap in the face to every lore freak. I'm out.

    Not really.

    It's obviously thought of as a sort of replica of the actual lore item, not the ACTUAL single unique lore item. Lest we forget the gen 1 legendary shield: The Flameseeker Prophecies. Did you think that legendary was the ACTUAL Flameseeker Prophecies? Was that shield a "slap in the face"? Of course not.

    Flameseeker prophecies is a book glued to a shield. It doesn't matter as you can read the Prophecies in multiple places. Not form but substance matters.

    The Claw is related to whole charr culture and government system. They wouldn't give it to anyone without explanation, yet alone to human. Also if we asume these are copies - which is stated nowhere - they also wouldn't allow to copy their sacred weapon and if anyone would disrespect the Claw like this, it would be a trigger to cut the treaty and go back fighting whole Tyria again.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Claw of Khan Ur being legendary weapon delivered in the current system is slap in the face to every lore freak. I'm out.

    Iirc the legendaries u get from zommoros' are copies of the originals.

    The display of multiple legendaries in his lair and also a boss in arah having twilight further supports that theory.

    Copies of what exactly. Because only few legendaries have any lore tied to them. Also... every player in GW2 is same person in lore - the Commander.

    Copies of the original weapons supposedly.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Claw of Khan Ur being legendary weapon delivered in the current system is slap in the face to every lore freak. I'm out.

    Iirc the legendaries u get from zommoros' are copies of the originals.

    The display of multiple legendaries in his lair and also a boss in arah having twilight further supports that theory.

    Copies of what exactly. Because only few legendaries have any lore tied to them. Also... every player in GW2 is same person in lore - the Commander.

    Copies of the original weapons supposedly.

    Charr wouldn't allow anyone to copy their "sacred" weapon.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Flameseeker prophecies is a book glued to a shield. It doesn't matter as you can read the Prophecies in multiple places. Not form but substance matters.

    The Claw is related to whole charr culture and government system. They wouldn't give it to anyone without explanation, yet alone to human. Also if we asume these are copies - which is stated nowhere - they also wouldn't allow to copy their sacred weapon and if anyone would disrespect the Claw like this, it would be a trigger to cut the treaty and go back fighting whole Tyria again.

    You could say a similar thing about the Shining Blade (This sword is of Seer origins, gifted to the Shining Blade after their victories over the mursaat during the Krytan civil war) but there was no kerfuffle about that one.

    It's not the same. Shining Blade was created as A TOOL to kill mursaat. It was released with episode that was never planned to happen but was created only because PoF was late. Also, the Commander got through ceremony of becoming part of shining blade (even though it's stupid aswell), which in some sense justifies him wielding the sword.

    Meahwhile, Claw of Khan Ur is an artifact that defines charr society and chain of command. This is not stupid seer toy, this is like letting us craft Holy Grail. There is nothing wrong in making the Commander earn claw of khan ur, maybe together with story arc explaining how charr are giving up all traditions of khan ur and war altogether. But it's unacceptable to give the Claw as stupid craftable weapon. Again, next time they gonna sell you Scepter of Orr via BLC. Because why not? You already prove you don't care.

    Anyway, I'm aware nothing is going to change about this. What I want is Anet to hear that I am DISGUSTED with how they deal with lore and artifacts. In any other game I would be sent to a quest to get a weapon like this, in this game all I need to do is buy some materials and spend 20 minutes in front of crafting bench. That's LAME.

    I'm done. Enjoy your gold sinks.

  • Nick Lentz.6982Nick Lentz.6982 Member ✭✭✭

    You clearly missed the lore!
    Taimi knows an Asura who knows who created it.

    Vinnorin Almar, Firebrand of Maguuma.
    I Crit Under Pressure is recruiting, message me for an invite ^_^

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Palador.2170 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Charr wouldn't allow anyone to copy their "sacred" weapon.

    Except for the fact that the current holder of the Claw, Smodur, doesn't hold it as sacred. Here's something from his page in the Wiki:

    It is debated whether Smodur will use the Claw to further his own influence over the legions to become the new Khan-Ur, or if he is hoping to see the ancient artifact, and therefore the legacy of the Khan-Ur, destroyed.

    Destroying it would be unthinkable to a lot of charr, so he may not want to do that. But he wants to weaken it as a symbol. Copies HAVE been made before, the Centurion's Claw, so why not allow more exact copies to be made? It keeps the artifact safe, but kills the impulse to react at the sight of it once you know there are good copies out there.

    That's cool. Anet definitely achieved weakening it as a symbol yesterday. If anything like this happened in game, to explain stuff you know, because random wiki speculations are not part of gw2 lore.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Palador.2170 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    That's cool. Anet definitely achieved weakening it as a symbol yesterday. If anything like this happened in game, to explain stuff you know, because random wiki speculations are not part of gw2 lore.

    I'm pretty sure it has more backing in lore than your personal speculations about what the charr would or would not do with the thing.

    If you're upset, fine. Be upset. That doesn't mean ANet screwed up.

    So what lore was presented to justify the Claw (or replica) being now in hands of the commander?

    What events in game explain that Smodur wants to lower the significance of the Claw and what actions did he took to proceed with his plan?

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2018

    @Palador.2170 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    That's cool. Anet definitely achieved weakening it as a symbol yesterday. If anything like this happened in game, to explain stuff you know, because random wiki speculations are not part of gw2 lore.

    I'm pretty sure it has more backing in lore than your personal speculations about what the charr would or would not do with the thing.

    If you're upset, fine. Be upset. That doesn't mean ANet screwed up.

    I got mine in the Black Citadel Gift Shop, next to the Meatoberfest mugs, it was half price. It has a button that you press and it says "By the Four Legions Combined, I am Khan-Ur!" and then there's a little thunder peal, but the speaker is kinda tinny and it just eats batteries!

    But hey, what do you expect for 15 silver.

  • Ardid.7203Ardid.7203 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Maybe Legendaries are to the original weapons as the Legendary figures of Revenant stances are to the real historic characters.

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    All the people saying the charr wouldn't allow a human to have the Claw of the Khan-Ur seem to be forgetting that the main bit of lore we have on it - the Ghosts of Ascalon book - is all about a charr (Almorra Soulkeeper) arranging for a human to retrieve the Claw so the human government could present it to the charr as a peace offering. If the charr were so sensitive about anyone else having anything to do with it that would never have even been suggested, the events of the book would never have happened and we may not have even heard about it's existence.

    Going back to the original topic I agree it would be nice to have more lore for the original legendaries. We get some hints from the precursor collections - for example the Bifrost seems to be tied to ancient Jotun magic and astronomy. But it would be nice if there was more info on them.

    "You can run like a river, Till you end up in the sea,
    And you run till night is black, And keep on going in your dreams,
    And you know all the long while, It's the journey that you seek,
    It's the miles of moving forward, With the wind beneath your wings."

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Danikat.8537 said:
    All the people saying the charr wouldn't allow a human to have the Claw of the Khan-Ur seem to be forgetting that the main bit of lore we have on it - the Ghosts of Ascalon book - is all about a charr (Almorra Soulkeeper) arranging for a human to retrieve the Claw so the human government could present it to the charr as a peace offering. If the charr were so sensitive about anyone else having anything to do with it that would never have even been suggested, the events of the book would never have happened and we may not have even heard about it's existence.

    Going back to the original topic I agree it would be nice to have more lore for the original legendaries. We get some hints from the precursor collections - for example the Bifrost seems to be tied to ancient Jotun magic and astronomy. But it would be nice if there was more info on them.

    Almorra organised the expedition to help in making the human-charr treaty. Group members were to recover and hand over the weapon, not to "wield" it as their own.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Claw of Khan Ur being legendary weapon delivered in the current system is slap in the face to every lore freak. I'm out.

    Iirc the legendaries u get from zommoros' are copies of the originals.

    The display of multiple legendaries in his lair and also a boss in arah having twilight further supports that theory.

    Copies of what exactly. Because only few legendaries have any lore tied to them. Also... every player in GW2 is same person in lore - the Commander.

    Copies of the original weapons supposedly.

    Charr wouldn't allow anyone to copy their "sacred" weapon.

    implying a djiin or w/e would care about that.

    Djinni would need to aquire original co make a copy in first place.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

  • Sojourner.4621Sojourner.4621 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

    No, it's not the same. Explained in previous posts. Feel free to read.

  • Sojourner.4621Sojourner.4621 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

    No, it's not the same. Explained in previous posts. Feel free to read.

    You "explained" in previous posts, but you are wrong. Game mechanics does not equal lore, period.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

    No, it's not the same. Explained in previous posts. Feel free to read.

    You "explained" in previous posts, but you are wrong. Game mechanics does not equal lore, period.

    Game mechanics are part of the lore, they are made to present the lore, execute the lore or even create the lore.

  • Sojourner.4621Sojourner.4621 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

    No, it's not the same. Explained in previous posts. Feel free to read.

    You "explained" in previous posts, but you are wrong. Game mechanics does not equal lore, period.

    Game mechanics are part of the lore, they are made to present the lore, execute the lore or even create the lore.

    They are only lore if they are stated as being lore. Some mechanics are, such as waypoints and asura gates, but others are not such as there being literally thousands of "commanders" despite there being only one. Is there, at any point, literally ANY place in the game where it states that this is the actual Claw of the Khan-Ur? There is not. That means it isn't lore.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2018

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

    No, it's not the same. Explained in previous posts. Feel free to read.

    You "explained" in previous posts, but you are wrong. Game mechanics does not equal lore, period.

    Game mechanics are part of the lore, they are made to present the lore, execute the lore or even create the lore.

    They are only lore if they are stated as being lore. Some mechanics are, such as waypoints and asura gates, but others are not such as there being literally thousands of "commanders" despite there being only one. Is there, at any point, literally ANY place in the game where it states that this is the actual Claw of the Khan-Ur? There is not. That means it isn't lore.

    In lore every player character is the same person. Also... what? Nowhere in game it states we are wielding legendary Claw? How about its name?

  • Sojourner.4621Sojourner.4621 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

    No, it's not the same. Explained in previous posts. Feel free to read.

    You "explained" in previous posts, but you are wrong. Game mechanics does not equal lore, period.

    Game mechanics are part of the lore, they are made to present the lore, execute the lore or even create the lore.

    They are only lore if they are stated as being lore. Some mechanics are, such as waypoints and asura gates, but others are not such as there being literally thousands of "commanders" despite there being only one. Is there, at any point, literally ANY place in the game where it states that this is the actual Claw of the Khan-Ur? There is not. That means it isn't lore.

    In lore every player character is the same person.

    Yes, that is EXACTLY what I just said. The lore is, by necessity, that the commander is a single person. However, the story that everyone plays through makes THEM the commander, which means by GAME MECHANICS, everyone is the commander. That means that the game mechanics by necessity contradict the lore. You can't have it both ways.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Even gemstore has lore, so your argument doesn't work.

    Yeah it does. Game mechanics /= lore. Proof: Horses appear nowhere in the game models, but they are frequently mentioned in the lore tie in novel, in the lore of the game itself, and by NPCs in the game, which means horses exist. That is a game mechanic, the model never having been created, not equaling the lore that explicitly tells us they exist. This is a model for players to carry around and show off, which does NOT mean that the commander actually has, or has a replica of, the actual weapon itself which lore EXPLICITLY states is in the possession of Smodur. That is a game mechanic, and is not lore, because the actual lore says otherwise. Every player can't LITERALLY be the pact commander... lore establishes there is only one... again, an example of game mechanics /= lore.

    No, it's not the same. Explained in previous posts. Feel free to read.

    You "explained" in previous posts, but you are wrong. Game mechanics does not equal lore, period.

    Game mechanics are part of the lore, they are made to present the lore, execute the lore or even create the lore.

    They are only lore if they are stated as being lore. Some mechanics are, such as waypoints and asura gates, but others are not such as there being literally thousands of "commanders" despite there being only one. Is there, at any point, literally ANY place in the game where it states that this is the actual Claw of the Khan-Ur? There is not. That means it isn't lore.

    In lore every player character is the same person.

    Yes, that is EXACTLY what I just said. The lore is, by necessity, that the commander is a single person. However, the story that everyone plays through makes THEM the commander, which means by GAME MECHANICS, everyone is the commander. That means that the game mechanics by necessity contradict the lore. You can't have it both ways.

    Thing is, lore never explaines how the Commander received Claw. I'm not mad because this weapon became legendary, I'm pissed off because of aquisition method which is an insult to any lore enthusiast.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    So how the Commander aquired the Claw?

  • Sojourner.4621Sojourner.4621 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    So how the Commander aquired the Claw?

    He didn't, it's a game mechanic, not lore. The claw is there. I even gave you a picture. The commander doesn't have it.

<13
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.