Why is killing the Elder Dragons bad again? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Why is killing the Elder Dragons bad again?

2

Comments

  • castlemanic.3198castlemanic.3198 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 17, 2018

    @Aaron Ansari.1604 said:
    It's part of Episode 2. The Inquest have found that Kralkatorrik's hivemind has 'upgraded', so now one minion can see respond to something that another minion sees.

    I did a bunch of googling and found nothing before finally just googling Kralkatorrik and finding the answer on the wiki. I had forgotten about that experiment with the two branded forgotten (i think) in a mirrored environment. Taimi says it pretty plainly that she thinks the hive mind is from Mordremoth, so I must have forgotten about that or didn't realise the importance of the statement.

    For those who don't know, this is the text

    PA Announcer: Imagine! Communications technology enhanced by the unique hive-mind abilities of Kralkatorrik's minions.
    Taimi: What? Their hive mind?
    Taimi: I wonder if that ability is something Kralkatorrik absorbed after Mordremoth's death. Some piece of its magical nature...

    Thanks for letting me know. (I don't mean that sarcastically, you let me know where to look but I'm useless and found it another way)

    If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate. Veterans can make signatures apparently.

  • Magek.4718Magek.4718 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm also not a fan of the direction the Elder Dragons are going in.

    Like, after everything Zhaitan did, after everyone he killed, Tybalt included, and you mean to tell me we SHOULDN'T have killed him?

    Hell no!

    And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.

    A part of me believes the whole "killing elder dragons is bad" thing is a red herring and won't amount to anything. The Elder Dragons are pure evil and letting them live means letting people die.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Magek.4718 said:
    I'm also not a fan of the direction the Elder Dragons are going in.

    Like, after everything Zhaitan did, after everyone he killed, Tybalt included, and you mean to tell me we SHOULDN'T have killed him?

    Hell no!

    And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.

    A part of me believes the whole "killing elder dragons is bad" thing is a red herring and won't amount to anything. The Elder Dragons are pure evil and letting them live means letting people die.

    It’s one of those situations where it’s good short term, bad long term.

    Obviously Zhaitan had to die or he would conquer Lion Arch and most likely the rest of Tyrian Continent.

  • castlemanic.3198castlemanic.3198 Member ✭✭✭

    @Magek.4718 said:
    I'm also not a fan of the direction the Elder Dragons are going in.

    Like, after everything Zhaitan did, after everyone he killed, Tybalt included, and you mean to tell me we SHOULDN'T have killed him?

    Hell no!

    And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.

    A part of me believes the whole "killing elder dragons is bad" thing is a red herring and won't amount to anything. The Elder Dragons are pure evil and letting them live means letting people die.

    Except, as we learn in Kesho, the forgotten had a plan to replace the elder dragons with the scions of Glint. Meaning that it IS possible to kill an elder dragon, so long as we have a replacement ready before it's death. Vlast and Aurene were supposed to be the replacements (with Glint herself being a possible third replacement).

    We killed Zhaitan without having a replacement ready. If we did, it would have been possible to kill Zhaitan and Mordremoth with zero repercussions. But since the replacements weren't ready, we destabilized the world. Hopefully Aurene can tip the scales back into balance somewhat, and maybe another friendly dragon or two (Kuunavang and Shiny are potential replacements, if they're still kicking) would help turn the tide enough to protect most of the contemporary living races and even send help to whatever remaining dwarves there may be.

    If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate. Veterans can make signatures apparently.

  • Rognik.2579Rognik.2579 Member ✭✭✭

    @Magek.4718 said:
    And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.

    No, the world will end if we DO kill them. Our homelands might be destroyed, and they might be going after the various races themselves if that's how they are tracking the magic, but the world itself will survive. Or, if you consider that the world, then it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

    @castlemanic.3198 said:
    Except, as we learn in Kesho, the forgotten had a plan to replace the elder dragons with the scions of Glint. Meaning that it IS possible to kill an elder dragon, so long as we have a replacement ready before it's death. Vlast and Aurene were supposed to be the replacements (with Glint herself being a possible third replacement).

    That's still a theory, though. It's the Forgotten's plan, but as dragons had never been replaced in the past (to our knowledge), their plan might still have failed even if Vlast hadn't become what he was. Everyone is banking on Aurene replacing Kralkatorrik as a world balancer, but we don't know if that will work or not.

  • castlemanic.3198castlemanic.3198 Member ✭✭✭

    @Rognik.2579 said:

    @castlemanic.3198 said:
    Except, as we learn in Kesho, the forgotten had a plan to replace the elder dragons with the scions of Glint. Meaning that it IS possible to kill an elder dragon, so long as we have a replacement ready before it's death. Vlast and Aurene were supposed to be the replacements (with Glint herself being a possible third replacement).

    That's still a theory, though. It's the Forgotten's plan, but as dragons had never been replaced in the past (to our knowledge), their plan might still have failed even if Vlast hadn't become what he was. Everyone is banking on Aurene replacing Kralkatorrik as a world balancer, but we don't know if that will work or not.

    It's more a counter to the statement "we shouldn't have killed an elder dragon" than anything else. You are right that it is just a theory at this point (I think Sadizi literally says "the theory was..."), but also Aurene would need to replace Moredremoth or Zhaitan at this point because I don't think we want to have another close call like nightfall on our hands. Kralkatorrik in his current state is bad news but there's two spots to fill before we should consider killing another elder dragon. It's already acknowledge in lore indirectly that it's theoretically possible for Aurene and Vlast to replace non-Kralkatorrik elder dragons by the very merit of there being two of them, and there's only one of Kralkatorrik (with Glint herself possibly taking Kralkatorrik's place, meaning Aurene and vlast would have both taken over other elder dragon's places).

    The theory does however have some merit, since we know that domains can be transferred from one dragon to another (destroyers and at least one icebrood having confirmed plant and death influences, with Kralkatorrik having a confirmed death influence and at least two branded having hive mind stuff from Mordremoth), so seemingly if the domain can be transferred entirely to a benevolent dragon, we'd have a good enough replacement (or at least if that dragon gains enough power to replace an elder dragon). That's as close to a confirmation as we can get right now, until Aurene takes her place in one of the two vacant spots right now (or replaces Kralkatorrik, which is a bad move imo but we'll see where the story goes).

    If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate. Veterans can make signatures apparently.

  • SnowHawk.3615SnowHawk.3615 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 25, 2018

    Think of the dragons like this: They're dams holding back all the water. Destroy one, well things begin to overflow and shift. Destroy two? Well you have a catastrophe of a flood.
    It's the same way for dragons and magic, they're the wall holding back the excess magic. When one is killed - it pours into another dragon like a cup.
    Bubbles is awake, but she has yet to be named.

  • Tails.9372Tails.9372 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SnowHawk.3615 said:
    Think of the dragons like this: They're dams holding back all the water. Destroy one, well things begin to overflow and shift. Destroy two? Well you have a catastrophe of a flood.

    But this just means that we "only" need to build an "additional dam" before destroying one of the old ones.

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

    @Tails.9372 said:

    @SnowHawk.3615 said:
    Think of the dragons like this: They're dams holding back all the water. Destroy one, well things begin to overflow and shift. Destroy two? Well you have a catastrophe of a flood.

    But this just means that we "only" need to build an "additional dam" before destroying one of the old ones.

    Pretty much, yes. We need to prepare at least four replacements if we want to kill all six old Elder Dragons. Though since Primordus and Jormag are asleep, Anet may push it to just two replacements, to kill Kralk and the DSD and leave the last four replacements for "future generation problems" like Dhuum, Joko, Lazarus, and Menzies were in GW1.

  • From a mortal perspective we have no other choice than to defend ourselves and to fight the Dragons who seek to destroy us. However, on a bigger, cosmic scale, we are fundamentally wrong because by killing them we are risking to destroy all of Tyria forever.

    I was sceptical with what they were doing but I'm quite happy with this direction and ultimately this dilemma. The solution of replacing the Dragons with benevolent beings is uncertain and that's adding flavours to the story. (Now in order to make me particularly happy, Anet would have to make us invade Cantha in order to reach Kuunavang or any other being able to absorb high quantities of raw magick. That would be so grim. (Or maybe to find a way to transform the sea into a solid jade like matter, could definitely be useful against Bubbles. I like this idea too but it's not the subject.))

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Come to think of it, besides the mursaat lore tablets from Rising Flames, was it ever actually suggested the alliance was out to kill the Elder Dragons? I had always thought it was an alliance to survive the Elder Dragons. Which is a mighty big difference - and, arguably, could be why the mursaat felt that they were the betrayed ones, if they felt the purpose of the alliance was to kill the Elder Dragons.

    The Mursaat left because they felt abandoned by the other races on the battlefield. In my opinion, they were the most likely to kill the Dragons just because their pride and their superiority complex would not let them do otherwise. They were not wise, they were sickly power hungry.

    From the wiki page on the Mursaat :
    "As one of the so-called "elder races", the mursaat's influence stretches far back into ancient history, to the time of the Great Giants, when magic was wild. 10,000 years ago, when the Elder Dragons last walked the surface of Tyria feeding on its magic, the mursaat allied with the other surviving races—the dwarves, the Seers, the jotun, and the Forgotten—in order to find a way to stop the dragons. The Forgotten and the mursaat fought together against Zhaitan but failed due to lack of support from the other races.[1] Realizing the dragons to be too powerful a threat to defeat, the elder races agreed to give their magic to the Seers, who would seal it within a Bloodstone, starving the dragons."

  • Arden.7480Arden.7480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2018

    It is not bad.

    The only fault we made (two times) was that we didn't have any vessel to hold the Dragon's magic.

    Zhaitan had to be stopped, we had to kill him to save ourselves, the problem was that there was no Glint- we didn't know she was THAT important to the All; Vlast was in Kesho, imprisoned in there.

    Perhaps we could imprison Zhaitan.

    Anyway if we ever try to kill a dragon, we must have a vessel to keep this magic in the nature, not risking the world to collapse.

    Season 4 seems to move towards this plan, having Blish (Gorrik is noone to me) and Blish's research on Kralkatorrik and Kas and Jory observes him, and Kralkatorrik is the only dragon we really know, we know about his weaknesses and his strength.

    Everybody that cares about the story should read "Edge of Destiny" before the episode 4.

    Mordremoth had to be killed anyway, even though we would know that killing him will cause the massive problem- we had to kill him- it was either him or Sylvari.

    So those vessels will work as the Bloodstones- but we need the living vessels.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

  • Toolbox.9375Toolbox.9375 Member ✭✭✭

    The solution is clear.

    We need to launch the dragons into space.

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

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭

    I actually agree with Ephemiel on this one. The Elder Dragons are integral to the planets existance, and we're banking a lot on replacing them with something we don't fully understand. What if our emotional bonding with Aurene doesn't stick? she's going to be thousands of years old at some point, what if she becomes just as numb to the suffering of Tyrians as any other Dragon? We're effectively just kicking the can down the road. I think the question isn't how do we replace Dragons, it's how do we safely put them to sleep.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

    Not sure what your point is. Again, regardless of what we did or whether it was right or not, we killed an Elder Dragon [and later a 2nd] and destabilized The All to the point where it's close to breaking.

    That's the whole point of Joko's monologue before he became dragon food, that what we did was actually something horrific.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

    Not sure what your point is. Again, regardless of what we did or whether it was right or not, we killed an Elder Dragon [and later a 2nd] and destabilized The All to the point where it's close to breaking.

    That's the whole point of Joko's monologue before he became dragon food, that what we did was actually something horrific.

    The point is Tyrians didn’t want to be slaughtered and no one knew what happened if an Elder Dragon was killed.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

    Not sure what your point is. Again, regardless of what we did or whether it was right or not, we killed an Elder Dragon [and later a 2nd] and destabilized The All to the point where it's close to breaking.

    That's the whole point of Joko's monologue before he became dragon food, that what we did was actually something horrific.

    The point is Tyrians didn’t want to be slaughtered and no one knew what happened if an Elder Dragon was killed.

    No one but the Gods, who also knew that killing them was a horrible idea. Yet again, won't change the fact we royally screwed up by doing it.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    I sometimes wonder if some of you guys pretend to not understand just to troll or what and at least two of you guys are starting to drive me up the wall, i'm done with all this.

    A few species going extinct vs THE WHOLE WORLD going extinct. Man, i wonder which one is worse in the end.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    I sometimes wonder if some of you guys pretend to not understand just to troll or what and at least two of you guys are starting to drive me up the wall, i'm done with all this.

    A few species going extinct vs THE WHOLE WORLD going extinct. Man, i wonder which one is worse in the end.

    Did I claim that it was good? I always said that Tyria blowing up is bad. What your having a problem with that you don’t think the dragon’s ravaging the planet is a bad thing. So if the dragon’s kill all life on the planet but them and their minions it’s still a win right? Yup that’s way better then Tyria blowing up.

  • Aaron Ansari.1604Aaron Ansari.1604 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    I sometimes wonder if some of you guys pretend to not understand just to troll or what and at least two of you guys are starting to drive me up the wall, i'm done with all this.

    A few species going extinct vs THE WHOLE WORLD going extinct. Man, i wonder which one is worse in the end.

    Did I claim that it was good? I always said that Tyria blowing up is bad. What your having a problem with that you don’t think the dragon’s ravaging the planet is a bad thing. So if the dragon’s kill all life on the planet but them and their minions it’s still a win right? Yup that’s way better then Tyria blowing up.

    It's an interesting moral dilemma, but I don't think there is a clear-cut right or wrong answer here. A choice between your own certain death, the death of many people you know and love over the next several years, and the death of almost all of their descendants within a century or two... or saving all of them, by running the risk of the entire world and everything in it being destroyed a few years later if you don't keep things under control. A utilitarian greater good vs. a deontological right to self-defense, embracing a lesser evil vs. risking a greater one for the chance to avoid the evils altogether... where you fall on these kinds of debates is a question of values, not logic. It depends on your own personal philosophy, and if you happen to feel strongly about it, the other option really isn't worth considering.

    Kind of a moot debate anyway, though, since A.) it wasn't an informed choice, given the Commander was unaware that there were big-picture consequences at the time that they made their choices, and B.) as Loesh brought up, there's a third line of inquiry we could explore that could handily avoid the dilemma if we found a way to pull it off again.

    R.I.P., Old Man of Auld Red Wharf. Gone but never forgotten.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    I sometimes wonder if some of you guys pretend to not understand just to troll or what and at least two of you guys are starting to drive me up the wall, i'm done with all this.

    A few species going extinct vs THE WHOLE WORLD going extinct. Man, i wonder which one is worse in the end.

    Did I claim that it was good? I always said that Tyria blowing up is bad. What your having a problem with that you don’t think the dragon’s ravaging the planet is a bad thing. So if the dragon’s kill all life on the planet but them and their minions it’s still a win right? Yup that’s way better then Tyria blowing up.

    Yep, i'm convinced you're all just pretending to not get it just to troll me, but i'll explain it to you one last time and then you can believe what you want since you clearly refuse to listen.

    The dragon's cycle has happened countless times before and life ALWAYS returns. THAT IS THE POINT, the Elder dragons come, absorb and gorge on magic, end up destroying a ton of life in the process and then they go back to sleep and life comes back. It's like the Reapers from Mass Effect, doing their cycle, they leave and life returns again. There's no life to return if Tyria is literally destroyed.

    You're thinking so hard on the "now" that you don't think of the future. Hell, the whole point of Joko's monologue, again, was to throw in our face what gigantic mistakes we made in killing 2 Elder Dragons and a God. Even if we replace Kralkatorrik with Aurene, we still have no way to replace Mordremoth or Zhaitan unless Deus Ex Taimi pops out with a solution [which she will, we all know that by now].

    We did what we thought was right in killing the dragons that were terrorizing Tyria, but in doing so, we're literally about to destroy Tyria itself, WHICH IS WORSE.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    I sometimes wonder if some of you guys pretend to not understand just to troll or what and at least two of you guys are starting to drive me up the wall, i'm done with all this.

    A few species going extinct vs THE WHOLE WORLD going extinct. Man, i wonder which one is worse in the end.

    Did I claim that it was good? I always said that Tyria blowing up is bad. What your having a problem with that you don’t think the dragon’s ravaging the planet is a bad thing. So if the dragon’s kill all life on the planet but them and their minions it’s still a win right? Yup that’s way better then Tyria blowing up.

    Yep, i'm convinced you're all just pretending to not get it just to troll me, but i'll explain it to you one last time and then you can believe what you want since you clearly refuse to listen.

    The dragon's cycle has happened countless times before and life ALWAYS returns. THAT IS THE POINT, the Elder dragons come, absorb and gorge on magic, end up destroying a ton of life in the process and then they go back to sleep and life comes back. It's like the Reapers from Mass Effect, doing their cycle, they leave and life returns again. There's no life to return if Tyria is literally destroyed.

    You're thinking so hard on the "now" that you don't think of the future. Hell, the whole point of Joko's monologue, again, was to throw in our face what gigantic mistakes we made in killing 2 Elder Dragons and a God. Even if we replace Kralkatorrik with Aurene, we still have no way to replace Mordremoth or Zhaitan unless Deus Ex Taimi pops out with a solution [which she will, we all know that by now].

    We did what we thought was right in killing the dragons that were terrorizing Tyria, but in doing so, we're literally about to destroy Tyria itself, WHICH IS WORSE.

    Not trolling you buckaroo, I’m challenging your perspective. I understand that the Elder Dragons keep the balance of magic in check. That being said they are not benign creatures. They destroy, they ravaged they consume. Given the chance they would tear the entire planet asunder to feed their hunger. Even if no life existed, magic would still flow and the dragon’s would consume and consume. Much like a cancerous tumour.

    The dragon’s will get replaced it clearly being foreshadowed and thrown in our faces. Let’s take a boo at what Sadizi says:

    Sadizi: The millennia-long Elder Dragon cycle is one of feast and famine. Ravenous, they rise. Sated, they sleep.
    Sadizi: Glint and the Forgotten set out to break this cycle of extremes and to restore TRUE balance.
    Sadizi: But when two Elder Dragons were unexpectedly eliminated from the cycle at one time, we believe it created a void.
    Sadizi: A void that caused the system to break down and the collapse to begin.
    Sadizi: The hope was that Glint's legacy would stabilize the cycle.
    Sadizi: We theorize these vacancies must be filled with entities that circulate and share magic rather than hoard it.
    Sadizi: Only then will the balance of magic TRULY become stable. Only then will Glint's legacy achieve its ultimate purpose.

    I’m not here to kitten you off, however you come off as if the Elder Dragon destroying and consuming everything is a good thing. It’s not.

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

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon is coming to crash down on the world, that's not an apt comparison at all. The entire point is "we can do nothing and let the Elder Dragons kill us now, or we can kill the Elder Dragons and deal with the consequences of killing them later."

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:
    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times.

    Technically, what could count as small moons have collided with Earth in the past. Or more accurately, giant meteorites, since they never became satellite objects revolving around the planet. And they've caused world extinction events. Earth eventually recovered, but the life at the time was almost all wiped out, leaving only a small handful to survive. See: dinosaurs.

    The same thing is the case for the Elder Dragons. They have come repeatedly, but with the exception of the previous dragonrise (this exception only capable due to the arrival of the Forgotten from the Mists), they have wiped out almost all life on the planet every time.

    The Elder Dragons being left alone is a world ending event. They destroy all known civilizations (especially those magically based like modern asura, sylvari, and human).

    Killing the Elder Dragons is a world ending event. But at least with killing them, you can replace them.

    It is a case of "both choices are bad, but we can fix one choice and not the other".

  • Arden.7480Arden.7480 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    As Konig said. Killing them is not bad, killing them without a proper preparation is bad- its cataclysmic.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Arden.7480 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    As Konig said. Killing them is not bad, killing them without a proper preparation is bad- its cataclysmic.

    ......Using your logic, if we could replace a person, then killing them isn't bad. Just think whatever you want, i'm done with all this ridiculous trolling.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    As Konig said. Killing them is not bad, killing them without a proper preparation is bad- its cataclysmic.

    ......Using your logic, if we could replace a person, then killing them isn't bad. Just think whatever you want, i'm done with all this ridiculous trolling.

    Using that analogy, killing a mass murderer is bad, even if we can replace them with a model citizen who would help out charities and the like.

    If you can go back in time and kill Adolf kitten and replace him with a kinder person who would help Germany recover but wouldn't persecute Jews and send them to concentration camps or try to expand Germany's borders through war, would that still be a bad thing to do?

    Granted, that is a bit of a question on morality. Whereas killing the Elder Dragons or not isn't.

  • Ephemiel.5694Ephemiel.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    As Konig said. Killing them is not bad, killing them without a proper preparation is bad- its cataclysmic.

    ......Using your logic, if we could replace a person, then killing them isn't bad. Just think whatever you want, i'm done with all this ridiculous trolling.

    Using that analogy, killing a mass murderer is bad, even if we can replace them with a model citizen who would help out charities and the like.

    Granted, that is a bit of a question on morality. Whereas killing the Elder Dragons or not isn't.

    Yes, killing a mass murderer is still bad, since you're COMMITTING MURDER YOURSELF.

    I'm done with this and all the trolling you two are doing.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    As Konig said. Killing them is not bad, killing them without a proper preparation is bad- its cataclysmic.

    ......Using your logic, if we could replace a person, then killing them isn't bad. Just think whatever you want, i'm done with all this ridiculous trolling.

    Using that analogy, killing a mass murderer is bad, even if we can replace them with a model citizen who would help out charities and the like.

    Granted, that is a bit of a question on morality. Whereas killing the Elder Dragons or not isn't.

    Yes, killing a mass murderer is still bad, since you're COMMITTING MURDER YOURSELF.

    I'm done with this and all the trolling you two are doing.

    I don’t think your getting it Ephemiel, this is not trolling. It is a perspective. You seem to keep dodging my question. Do you think the Elder Dragons rampaging across Tyria is s good thing? If yes, then the conversation can’t move any further from here because you believe the main antagonists of this series are not antagonists at all.

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

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:
    Yes, killing a mass murderer is still bad, since you're COMMITTING MURDER YOURSELF.

    I'm done with this and all the trolling you two are doing.

    So by your argument, the state is evil for executing a prisoner who, if left alive and released, would kill dozens more, and if left alive and in prison, would just be a waste of resources (both the resources to ensure the person isn't neglected, such as food, electricity, and running water, but also the resources of ensuring he doesn't escape). Would it then be considered a good act to let that mass murderer free into society where they can kill again and again and again?

    This is why that analogy is, as I said, a question on morality.

    But the Elder Dragons is a different matter. As there is no option to imprison them until they die of old age, and they themselves are not bound by the same philosophy of morality as we humans are. Even if they are, they would be far worse than that hypothetical mass murderer.

    And no, we're not trolling. In all honesty, you continuously dodging the question of "is letting the Elder Dragons live to wipe out all civilization a good thing then?" is closer to trolling.

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭

    @Hannelore.8153 said:

    @MithranArkanere.8957 said:
    The problem is, we only got one dragon to replace 6. We need more replacements.

    SPOILERS
    As per "Tequatl Rising", Tequatl is slowly replacing Zhaitan (though this is not good), and the Pale Tree is likely also replacing Modremoth, as just like Glint she is a purified dragon champion who fans speculate one day has the ability to become an Elder Dragon-ish being herself.

    Understanding this can help put Scarlet Briar's vision of the Eternal Alchemy into place.

    Makes me wonder if the giant dead tree where we kill mordremoth's mouth was originally a pale tree too.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    I believe it was a Stonewood tree, the largest type of tree in the Maguuma Jungle. Whether it was or not, it's the same type of tree (same tree model, more or less) as The Great Tree of Tangled Depths and the fallen Ancient Tree of Verdant Brink. Both were being corrupted by Mordremoth, and it seems the former (the Great Tree) was being turned into a new Blighting Tree as the mordrem were gathering corpses to it.

  • Arden.7480Arden.7480 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    As Konig said. Killing them is not bad, killing them without a proper preparation is bad- its cataclysmic.

    ......Using your logic, if we could replace a person, then killing them isn't bad. Just think whatever you want, i'm done with all this ridiculous trolling.

    Trolling? I'm being serious...

    Glint wanted to KILL Kralkatorrik, if Rytlock would have put the spear in Kralk's heart, then Glint would have become a new eldet dragon.

    That is what "a way forward" chapter was all about...

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hannelore.8153 said:

    @MithranArkanere.8957 said:
    The problem is, we only got one dragon to replace 6. We need more replacements.

    SPOILERS
    As per "Tequatl Rising", Tequatl is slowly replacing Zhaitan (though this is not good), and the Pale Tree is likely also replacing Modremoth, as just like Glint she is a purified dragon champion who fans speculate one day has the ability to become an Elder Dragon-ish being herself.

    Understanding this can help put Scarlet Briar's vision of the Eternal Alchemy into place.

    Where can i find this information about Tequatl, this is new to me!!

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

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

    @Dante.1763 said:

    @Hannelore.8153 said:

    @MithranArkanere.8957 said:
    The problem is, we only got one dragon to replace 6. We need more replacements.

    SPOILERS
    As per "Tequatl Rising", Tequatl is slowly replacing Zhaitan (though this is not good), and the Pale Tree is likely also replacing Modremoth, as just like Glint she is a purified dragon champion who fans speculate one day has the ability to become an Elder Dragon-ish being herself.

    Understanding this can help put Scarlet Briar's vision of the Eternal Alchemy into place.

    Where can i find this information about Tequatl, this is new to me!!

    There was an NPC added with the update (still around there I believe) which commented on Tequatl getting stronger after Zhaitan's death. But more recently (2016 I think?) there was a Q&A with a dev which confirmed this was Tequatl getting a portion of Zhaitan's magic.

    Either way, Tequatl canonically kicked the bucket in Season 1, Rox even cut off its tail and hauled it around, so it won't be becoming an Elder Dragon anytime soon.

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Dante.1763 said:

    @Hannelore.8153 said:

    @MithranArkanere.8957 said:
    The problem is, we only got one dragon to replace 6. We need more replacements.

    SPOILERS
    As per "Tequatl Rising", Tequatl is slowly replacing Zhaitan (though this is not good), and the Pale Tree is likely also replacing Modremoth, as just like Glint she is a purified dragon champion who fans speculate one day has the ability to become an Elder Dragon-ish being herself.

    Understanding this can help put Scarlet Briar's vision of the Eternal Alchemy into place.

    Where can i find this information about Tequatl, this is new to me!!

    There was an NPC added with the update (still around there I believe) which commented on Tequatl getting stronger after Zhaitan's death. But more recently (2016 I think?) there was a Q&A with a dev which confirmed this was Tequatl getting a portion of Zhaitan's magic.

    Either way, Tequatl canonically kicked the bucket in Season 1, Rox even cut off its tail and hauled it around, so it won't be becoming an Elder Dragon anytime soon.

    Thank you for that, i wasnt aware that Tequatl had "died" either.

    I wish theyd at least make the cutscenes viewable in game from season 1(if it was one).

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • Cristalyan.5728Cristalyan.5728 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    Yes, killing a mass murderer is still bad, since you're COMMITTING MURDER YOURSELF.

    My respect for this affirmation. I'm glad to see that we still can find true humans playing GW2.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    So by your argument, the state is evil for executing a prisoner who, if left alive and released, would kill dozens more, and if left alive and in prison, would just be a waste of resources (both the resources to ensure the person isn't neglected, such as food, electricity, and running water, but also the resources of ensuring he doesn't escape). Would it then be considered a good act to let that mass murderer free into society where they can kill again and again and again?

    This is why that analogy is, as I said, a question on morality.

    You are totally wrong. The state is not executing a person. That person is executed by real persons. "You killed someone. You are evil. And to show you that we, the good people are better than you, I will execute you". To laugh? Or to cry? Because this is pure hypocrisy :# And another small detail - that killer has been judged, found guilty and the penalty decided by other persons. I don't know what you think, but in the christian world this should be a pure evidence of arrogance. Because, you know, at least in the US, everyone agrees with the "in GOD we trust". So, everyone tacitly accepts that only one JUDGE exists. And that judge is not an ordinary human. So, to conclude, executing a killer is even worse than killing. We execute him because we feel good when we replace the GOD and judge him. And punishing him also.

    And the argument with the resources =). In your opinion a human life (no matter how lowly that human is) is less important than the water and electricity? Are you serious or are you just trolling?

    But to come back to the topic: "Killing the dragons is bad" is a last hour turn in the gw2 lore. Nobody during the 10 000 year of the last cycle hinted to this. Not even Glint - I don't recall Glint explicitly saying this.

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    Sadizi: The millennia-long Elder Dragon cycle is one of feast and famine. Ravenous, they rise. Sated, they sleep.
    Sadizi: Glint and the Forgotten set out to break this cycle of extremes and to restore TRUE balance.
    Sadizi: But when two Elder Dragons were unexpectedly eliminated from the cycle at one time, we believe it created a void.
    Sadizi: A void that caused the system to break down and the collapse to begin.
    Sadizi: The hope was that Glint's legacy would stabilize the cycle.
    Sadizi: We theorize these vacancies must be filled with entities that circulate and share magic rather than hoard it.
    Sadizi: Only then will the balance of magic TRULY become stable. Only then will Glint's legacy achieve its ultimate purpose.

    I’m not here to kitten you off, however you come off as if the Elder Dragon destroying and consuming everything is a good thing. It’s not.

    What Sadzi babbles is an effort of the lore team to get out of the corner they pushed the story.

    • first affirmation - the cycle of feast and famine - this is the only behavior Tyria knows from the very beginning. Then how can someone know what is the TRUE balance (see affirmation2)? If you don't know another way of manifestation, how do you know the way you think is the TRUE way? Not even the "gods" knows what a TRUE balance is.
    • Third affirmation: when the two ED were eliminated, we BELIEVE it created a void. WHAT? We are acting now based on beliefs? The moment of .... inspiration when Taimi realized that killing another dragon is bad is not very far away. And now every skritt and his quagan pet knows this?
    • "We theorize these vacancies must be filled with entities that circulate and share magic rather than hoard it." The ED circulate and share magic. If they keep the magic and not circulate it they will sleep for the eternity. What we need is something circulating the magic at a faster rate or something to keep the level of magic in the world at a desired level. In my opinion - looking at the Bloodstones - this can be achieved by some artificial devices. Something to store the magic and to release it when the ambient level of magic reaches a certain low level. And to absorb the magic when the ambient level reaches a certain max level.

    To conclude: It is bad in this moment to kill the Dragons (based on Taimi's statements and some other beliefs). Let's wait for the lore team to fill the vacancies after two of the members left the team and who knows? Maybe we will find that we still can kill the dragons. And the hunting season to Dragons is finally open.

  • Oglaf.1074Oglaf.1074 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Killing a mass murderer is a bad thing? Allow me to disagree vehemently. While it is true that killing another human being is inherently a bad thing, killing a mass murderer prevents them from killing people which makes it justifiable evil for the greater good.

    Batman should’ve snapped the Joker’s neck years ago.

    Please Anet give us a hide Chest Armour-option. Tattoo-clad Norns everywhere beg of you.

  • Cristalyan.5728Cristalyan.5728 Member ✭✭✭

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    Killing a mass murderer is a bad thing? Allow me to disagree vehemently. While it is true that killing another human being is inherently a bad thing, killing a mass murderer prevents them from killing people which makes it justifiable evil for the greater good.

    Batman should’ve snapped the Joker’s neck years ago.

    To keep the people safe from a mass murderer is enough to keep the murderer far from the innocent humans. And because mass killing is not the normal behavior of a human, I think a mass killer is basically suffering from an illness. It can be kept in a hospital. And the medics, who swore to help any human in need may try to cure him.
    Well, this can be true if we don't take into consideration the quantity of water this killer need to drink over years and how much electricity we waste on him. It is easier to kill him.

  • norbes.3620norbes.3620 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 31, 2018

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    I sometimes wonder if some of you guys pretend to not understand just to troll or what and at least two of you guys are starting to drive me up the wall, i'm done with all this.

    A few species going extinct vs THE WHOLE WORLD going extinct. Man, i wonder which one is worse in the end.

    Did I claim that it was good? I always said that Tyria blowing up is bad. What your having a problem with that you don’t think the dragon’s ravaging the planet is a bad thing. So if the dragon’s kill all life on the planet but them and their minions it’s still a win right? Yup that’s way better then Tyria blowing up.

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Ephemiel.5694 said:

    @Arden.7480 said:
    It is not bad.

    The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

    It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

    Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

    Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

    Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

    And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

    That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

    The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

    Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

    Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

    Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

    I don't understand why is this is hard to get.

    Elder Dragons rampaging the planet is not a bad thing?

    Who knows how many species are now extinct because of the dragons, hundreds, thousands? We don’t know how many cycles these things have gone through and the devestation they caused. Cool life returns, at the cost of mass extinction of many different species? Blowing up Tyria is bad, however so is letting the Elder Dragons live as well. Why is that so hard to understand?

    I sometimes wonder if some of you guys pretend to not understand just to troll or what and at least two of you guys are starting to drive me up the wall, i'm done with all this.

    A few species going extinct vs THE WHOLE WORLD going extinct. Man, i wonder which one is worse in the end.

    Did I claim that it was good? I always said that Tyria blowing up is bad. What your having a problem with that you don’t think the dragon’s ravaging the planet is a bad thing. So if the dragon’s kill all life on the planet but them and their minions it’s still a win right? Yup that’s way better then Tyria blowing up.

    Yep, i'm convinced you're all just pretending to not get it just to troll me, but i'll explain it to you one last time and then you can believe what you want since you clearly refuse to listen.

    The dragon's cycle has happened countless times before and life ALWAYS returns. THAT IS THE POINT, the Elder dragons come, absorb and gorge on magic, end up destroying a ton of life in the process and then they go back to sleep and life comes back. It's like the Reapers from Mass Effect, doing their cycle, they leave and life returns again. There's no life to return if Tyria is literally destroyed.

    You're thinking so hard on the "now" that you don't think of the future. Hell, the whole point of Joko's monologue, again, was to throw in our face what gigantic mistakes we made in killing 2 Elder Dragons and a God. Even if we replace Kralkatorrik with Aurene, we still have no way to replace Mordremoth or Zhaitan unless Deus Ex Taimi pops out with a solution [which she will, we all know that by now].

    We did what we thought was right in killing the dragons that were terrorizing Tyria, but in doing so, we're literally about to destroy Tyria itself, WHICH IS WORSE.

    Not trolling you buckaroo, I’m challenging your perspective. I understand that the Elder Dragons keep the balance of magic in check. That being said they are not benign creatures. They destroy, they ravaged they consume. Given the chance they would tear the entire planet asunder to feed their hunger. Even if no life existed, magic would still flow and the dragon’s would consume and consume. Much like a cancerous tumour.

    The dragon’s will get replaced it clearly being foreshadowed and thrown in our faces. Let’s take a boo at what Sadizi says:

    Sadizi: The millennia-long Elder Dragon cycle is one of feast and famine. Ravenous, they rise. Sated, they sleep.
    Sadizi: Glint and the Forgotten set out to break this cycle of extremes and to restore TRUE balance.
    Sadizi: But when two Elder Dragons were unexpectedly eliminated from the cycle at one time, we believe it created a void.
    Sadizi: A void that caused the system to break down and the collapse to begin.
    Sadizi: The hope was that Glint's legacy would stabilize the cycle.
    Sadizi: We theorize these vacancies must be filled with entities that circulate and share magic rather than hoard it.
    Sadizi: Only then will the balance of magic TRULY become stable. Only then will Glint's legacy achieve its ultimate purpose.

    I’m not here to kitten you off, however you come off as if the Elder Dragon destroying and consuming everything is a good thing. It’s not.

    @Ephemiel.5694 Does not say that it is a good Thing to let them go on rampage.
    the ED are the NATURAL LAW of this planet. the WHOLE life is circulating around the existence of the Dragons cuz they are the Center of all

    is it bad that they extinguish whole races? for those who go extinct im pretty sure it is.. dinosaurs propably thought the same.. and still if nature decides to reset in a cycle of every few thousand years.. well then thats how it should be like it or not

    ofcouse every race will always try to survive.. individuals may decide to die for a cause but civilisations tend to thrive for survival so in order to do that they will do whatever is necessary and within their abilities to achieve that. if they are ABLE to break the cycle of life of this planet itself then they will. and in tyria they did.

    but now the Problem is that the Balance of the world is shaken in its core

    it is all about perspective.
    is is bad that races goe extinct? - not really cuz the cycle will continue over an over
    is it bad for those races?- im pretty sure of that
    is breaking the natural law of the planet and threaten the whole planet itself with destruction a bad Thing?- pretty sure of this either yes!
    should the natural order just be accepted ? well yea but like i said the survival instinct is a strong Thing

    Edit: The whole murderer Thing im pretty sure @Konig Des Todes.2086 said pretty clear that it is a question of morality to kill him or not regarding that keeping him alive is a pretty expansive Thing. he did not say anything about his own opinion but shown the 3 possible ways to view that case

  • Oglaf.1074Oglaf.1074 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    Killing a mass murderer is a bad thing? Allow me to disagree vehemently. While it is true that killing another human being is inherently a bad thing, killing a mass murderer prevents them from killing people which makes it justifiable evil for the greater good.

    Batman should’ve snapped the Joker’s neck years ago.

    To keep the people safe from a mass murderer is enough to keep the murderer far from the innocent humans. And because mass killing is not the normal behavior of a human, I think a mass killer is basically suffering from an illness. It can be kept in a hospital. And the medics, who swore to help any human in need may try to cure him.
    Well, this can be true if we don't take into consideration the quantity of water this killer need to drink over years and how much electricity we waste on him. It is easier to kill him.

    Atrocities during things like WWII tells us that the notion that a mass/serial killer must be “insane” and “not normal” is merely wishful thinking in order to distance us from “normal” people from them rather than face the harsh reality that given the right circumstances, any one of us is capable of immense evil. It is easier to classify them as separate from us. Far, faaar easier.

    Please Anet give us a hide Chest Armour-option. Tattoo-clad Norns everywhere beg of you.

  • DarcShriek.5829DarcShriek.5829 Member ✭✭✭

    It seems the solution is to build a new bloodstone

  • Cristalyan.5728Cristalyan.5728 Member ✭✭✭

    @DarcShriek.5829 said:
    It seems the solution is to build a new bloodstone

    I agree We can ask the Asurans to design some Exo Pyramidal Aetheropumps to regulate the absorption of the magic inside the Bloodstone. And other Magical super Valves to regulate the output of the magic from the Bloodstone. If we can find the right amount of the magic into the world, we can keep the Elder Dragons alive but sleeping and in the same time we can keep Tyria alive.
    Happy ending! Everything has the right to grow !
    And Evon Gnashblade can make some money by opening a touristic route to the places where the dragons sleep.

2
©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.