Shining blade oath and the PC's "death". — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Shining blade oath and the PC's "death".

Eekasqueak.7850Eekasqueak.7850 Member ✭✭✭

I doubt the oath will come up again... but I've been thinking. If it's supposed to be a to the death type thing did the commander dying then coming back null the whole thing? It'd at least be a way to prevent it from bogging down non human commanders so they're no longer sworn to a human kingdom.

<1

Comments

  • Eekasqueak.7850Eekasqueak.7850 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Nothing about the oath says "until death". The oath kills the oathtaker, so nothing suggests it'd go away after death. Keep in mind that while resurrection has been reduced to practically non-existent in modern GW2 time, when Livia was a normal person, and when she designed the oath, it was a relatively common magic.

    And the oath doesn't swear anyone to Kryta, or to its crown which is what the Shining Blade care about. The oath only prevents talking about classified Shining Blade intel to people not in the Shining Blade

    If the consequence is death and that consequence happens anyway I feel like it going away is very heavily implied.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Eekasqueak.7850 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Nothing about the oath says "until death". The oath kills the oathtaker, so nothing suggests it'd go away after death. Keep in mind that while resurrection has been reduced to practically non-existent in modern GW2 time, when Livia was a normal person, and when she designed the oath, it was a relatively common magic.

    And the oath doesn't swear anyone to Kryta, or to its crown which is what the Shining Blade care about. The oath only prevents talking about classified Shining Blade intel to people not in the Shining Blade

    If the consequence is death and that consequence happens anyway I feel like it going away is very heavily implied.

    Perhaps, but would you bet your life on it?

    I think the overall resolution, though, will simply be that the Shining Blade still regards anything that would come under the oath as being on a need-to-know basis, so the only thing that the Commander knows and which the oath applies to is the plan to resurrect Lazarus in order to kill him. (Remember that Livia was worried about the Commander telling the world that she's still around, which implies that the Commander can do so and the oath won't prevent it.)

  • @Eekasqueak.7850 said:
    If the consequence is death and that consequence happens anyway I feel like it going away is very heavily implied.

    It would seem rather pointless if it went away at death, since back when it was designed, it just meant the White Mantle had to get a monk with a resurrection spell. Then bam, they could torture all those juicy secrets out of the agent.

  • Lametoile.7394Lametoile.7394 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Nothing about the oath says "until death". The oath kills the oathtaker, so nothing suggests it'd go away after death. Keep in mind that while resurrection has been reduced to practically non-existent in modern GW2 time, when Livia was a normal person, and when she designed the oath, it was a relatively common magic.

    And the oath doesn't swear anyone to Kryta, or to its crown which is what the Shining Blade care about. The oath only prevents talking about classified Shining Blade intel to people not in the Shining Blade.

    personnaly, I've always considered the resurection magic in gw1 to be nothing more than a gameplay mechanic and not a lore thing by any means.

    And it makes sense. If bringing people back from the dead was a common things, how the hell could such a magic had been lost? Why don't we never hear about it? And why didn't we use it in the story of both gw1 and gw2 to bring back important characters you die.

    There is no ressurection magic in Tyria. The case of ressurection in the lore are extremely rare (PC and team in Factions, luxons during the great ceremony, Shiro, PC in GW2,...) and are considered exceptionnal.

    As for the shining blade oath...well it really depends on how the enchantment worked. Maybe it go away when you die, since you're not supposed to come back. Or maybe it's tied to the soul and stay in place forever.
    Considering that the oath is basically a device invented by the developpers so that they can conveniently avoid to speak about the shining blade and Livia, i wuld say it's very likely we are still cursed.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 5, 2018

    @Lametoile.7394 said:
    personnaly, I've always considered the resurection magic in gw1 to be nothing more than a gameplay mechanic and not a lore thing by any means.

    Except it fully is. Some examples:

    Glint: "Their souls will be reaped upon one of the five Bloodstones, just as the Chosen you witnessed being slaughtered in the Maguuma Jungle."
    Glint: "If this happens, no magic on this world or any other will bring them back."
    https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Dragon's_Lair#Intermediate_cinematic

    "Remember all those times we were dying and I was the only one left standing but I used my signet on Alesia instead of you only to have her die while attempting to restore Lina's life? Yeah, good times. Good times."
    https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Reyna

    "[...] Dhuum's reign will be brutal and uncompromising, for he is the Final Death, and he does not tolerate resurrections or the undead. [...]"
    https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Nightman_Cometh

    These are just obvious examples that can't be argued to be breaking the 4th wall breaking like this tutorial quest; despite no dialogue breaking the 4th wall, some people have argued in the past it does "because it's tutorial and other tutorial stuff does blatantly".

    @Lametoile.7394 said:
    And it makes sense. If bringing people back from the dead was a common things, how the hell could such a magic had been lost? Why don't we never hear about it? And why didn't we use it in the story of both gw1 and gw2 to bring back important characters you die.

    There is no ressurection magic in Tyria. The case of ressurection in the lore are extremely rare (PC and team in Factions, luxons during the great ceremony, Shiro, PC in GW2,...) and are considered exceptionnal.

    It might not have been explicitly common. But it existed, and wasn't isolated to super rare cases, since Reyna comments about how we use it in adventures. We don't know how it got lost, just that it was - but a lot of magic changed in 250 years. Hexes are a lost magical art, too; the entire point of Livia having unique hex-based skills rather than simple condition apply skills was to show that she uses ancient magic (there was a dev comment somewhere about that).

    One theory is that the Six's departure, specifically Grenth's, is what prevents resurrection magic from working as it once did.

    But ultimately, resurrection stuff was removed from the lore as "no longer accessible" because the devs felt like it cheapened story deaths - which was a constant discussion back in GW1's community why we couldn't just use resurrection skills on Rurik, Saidra, Togo, or Gadd (among others). There are obviously limits to who can be resurrected, given these story deaths yet story resurrections outside of special circumstances (Envoys, etc.), but they're never specified.

    What is specified is that resurrection magic existed, but doesn't anymore.

  • I even remember some short stories from pre-launch of GW1 describing battle from historical guild wars where monks gets killed and the narratign warrior says out loud that "well, kitten if we die now, we die for good"

    as for rezzing important characters, my headcannon for this would be that resurrection magic A) would require body to be "mostly" intact B) original soul needs to be accessible C) needs to be able to overpower whatever was the source of that character dying in the first place.
    which would explain why people sacrificed on the bloodstone can't be revived (soul not available because it is trapped in bloodstone), not sure if I remember how exacly rurik or saidra died, but for Gadd - he died in explosion - it is very likely there was nothing really left to resurrect in there and for Togo - mere mortals can't overpower envoy's instakill-spell (which also contributes to PC death during factions campaign where Shiro just randomly kills whole party at a time, and it takes rest of envoys to revive us - but only under promise we deal with shiro afterwards)

    as for why it's gone, from what I understand the entity responsible for allowing it to work this way in the first place was grenth, so it would be logical that with grenth distancing himself away some of his gifts would weaken.....

    other possible issue in here is arcane energy (magic) needed to be channeled to perform the thing - please note that asuran PS arcdirectly states that because of EDs activity "ambient magical levels are dropping at alarming rate" - if they were dropping like this for better chunk of last 250 years you could assume these levels used to be MUCH higher during GW1 timeline giving humans more than enought of magic juice to channel into incredible things, which now may be not as accessible simply due to not enought of magic juice floating around to do it..... (or in case of more recent events - not enought SUITABLE arcane juice floating in the air ;) )

    but it's all speculation as good as any other....

    point to original point stays tho - when oath was designed resurrection magic was not uncommon thing, therefore it going away with one's death would make barely any sense in terms of prevention of SB intel leaking.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 5, 2018

    It worked for Jon Snow.

    As far as resurrection magic counterargument goes, the penalty for revealing information about the order is death. If members who violated the oath could easily be resurrected, it defeats that penalty.

    And to be honest, it’ll be entirely up to Anet to decide in the end but I have a feeling that that is the route they’d go with. The main character being a member of that order isn’t really a major plot and it’s the easiest way to tie up that plot thread.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    As far as resurrection magic counterargument goes, the penalty for revealing information about the order is death. If members who violated the oath could easily be resurrected, it defeats that penalty.

    From discussion with the exemplars afterwards, however, it seems to be regarded almost as much as a precaution than a penalty per se. Sure, it is a punishment to anyone who tries to spill freely, but it also means that information cannot be extracted through torture or similar means.

  • Eekasqueak.7850Eekasqueak.7850 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Eekasqueak.7850 said:
    If the consequence is death and that consequence happens anyway I feel like it going away is very heavily implied.

    It would seem rather pointless if it went away at death, since back when it was designed, it just meant the White Mantle had to get a monk with a resurrection spell. Then bam, they could torture all those juicy secrets out of the agent.

    Can you even resurrect someone who doesn't want to be? I have a hard time thinking that would be the case, and the prospect of coming back only to he tortured seems like it would prevent anyone from wanting to.

  • @Eekasqueak.7850 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Eekasqueak.7850 said:
    If the consequence is death and that consequence happens anyway I feel like it going away is very heavily implied.

    It would seem rather pointless if it went away at death, since back when it was designed, it just meant the White Mantle had to get a monk with a resurrection spell. Then bam, they could torture all those juicy secrets out of the agent.

    Can you even resurrect someone who doesn't want to be? I have a hard time thinking that would be the case, and the prospect of coming back only to he tortured seems like it would prevent anyone from wanting to.

    With so few rules and behaviors about resurrection being unknown, it's impossible to say whether or not you can forcibly resurrect someone against their will. But given that one can summon a spirit from the Underworld against their consent, I'd imagine so.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    At the very least, we know that not only is it possible to shove a spirit into a construct against their will, the mursaat/White Mantle have had the ability to do so. So for the oath to really work, it'd have to do something to prevent posthumous interrogation.

  • Castigator.3470Castigator.3470 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Eekasqueak.7850 said:
    If the consequence is death and that consequence happens anyway I feel like it going away is very heavily implied.

    It would seem rather pointless if it went away at death, since back when it was designed, it just meant the White Mantle had to get a monk with a resurrection spell. Then bam, they could torture all those juicy secrets out of the agent.

    That depends on whether or not you can be resurrected against your will. In some RPGs this is flat out impossible, once the soul has moved on to the afterlife.
    In all cases of resurrection in GW1 we, the players, obviously wanted to continue playing. As for Balthazar, he had to physically go into the Mists and deploy a soul eater into the domain of the lost to force spirits into his forged army, who didn't even remember their names. On the other hand, those make the perfect brainwashable recruits for that purpose.
    Palawa Joko apparently invented that technique, but his eaters only disperse the ghosts. The ghosts get mad*, if you repeat that often enough.
    Zhaitan's undead were not necessarily the same spirits as the originals. The only spirits he could get, were they Royal Family, who are still around even after Zhaitan's death. They have some unfinished business in Orr.

    *Understandable, to them it's like being killed in PvP over and over again, which tends to grind even on robust ghosts.

  • @Castigator.3470 said:
    As for Balthazar, he had to physically go into the Mists and deploy a soul eater into the domain of the lost to force spirits into his forged army, who didn't even remember their names. On the other hand, those make the perfect brainwashable recruits for that purpose.

    The Eater of Souls wasn't deployed by Balthazar. He took souls from the Dominion of the Lost the same way necromancers, like Joko, would and have. The Eater of Souls is a a demon, a native of the Mists, that simply feasts on souls. That one managed to get into Grenth's domain after Grenth left, leaving the Underworld less defended than before.

  • Castigator.3470Castigator.3470 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 8, 2018

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    The Eater of Souls wasn't deployed by Balthazar. He took souls from the Dominion of the Lost the same way necromancers, like Joko, would and have. The Eater of Souls is a a demon, a native of the Mists, that simply feasts on souls. That one managed to get into Grenth's domain after Grenth left, leaving the Underworld less defended than before.

    Okay. But what happens to the ghosts that get eaten? We are told they disappear forever, but is such an event even possible? We know that it is possible to bind souls for a very long time via bloodstone or even into entities like Gorseval, but after a Gorse-kill Gorseval decays back into the component spirits, so they were not really gone, as they were facettes of a composite entity. The soul eater may be able to separate the life force from the Ghosts, but where do the souls go?

    I'm still sceptical that they go directly into /dev/null ,which may have been stated for dramatic effect. But overall the Mists in their infinite space may contain a possibly infinite amount of entities, composite entities, strange beings like Viirastra and since very recently, Kralkatorrik and very likely beings of similar power somewhere far out in the Mists.
    Maybe the absorbed Ghosts are pushed deep into the Mists into low energy regions, far away from Tyria and other lively places and so lost in the vastness of Space, that from a human perspective they may aswell be lost? But if they manage to traverse a lightyear of distance they may be able to get to a more interesting place? Even with a ghostly Roller Beetle, this is going to take a while*. We simply have no sources on what really happens there, and I doubt that aside from the Inquest many would dare to seek answers to that.
    The other thing is that defeated ghosts are not killed, they respawn like minecraft players. The foefire ghosts are cursed with blindness and are forced to reconstitute on Tyrian soil, but ghosts like Bria have found ways around the mind control aspect of the Foefire. The ghosts in Orr and Elona are not brainwashed and can be reasoned with. Generally some form of unfinished business keeps them on Tyria, some may stay around to watch over their families, some may transmit information to and from the Mists. Maybe an experienced Revenant could tell us more, but Rytlock is still pretty new to the mist travel aspects of it.

    * A long while. A lightyear is 9.46x10¹⁵ metres. Assuming a travel speed of 100 Km/h or 27.77 m/s this takes a time of 3.40x10¹⁴ seconds, or 1.08x10⁷ years, so roughly ten million years to get back into action. And that may not even be the final distance - being lost in the Mists may suck!

  • They don't disappear forever immediately. When we kill the Eater of Souls, all the souls it ate escape. We see similar events with various demons in GW1, where killing the demon unleashes the soul. Even cases of souls eaten 200 years prior to the game. But evidence does suggest that after a few centuries of excruciating digestion they cease to exist because just as we burn food for energy, demons would in turn be burning their food (aka souls) for energy. Souls just have more energy before they're burned.

    The ghosts aren't pushed anywhere, either, they just sit inside the guts of the demon until digested or freed (via death of the demon). For all intents and purposes, being trapped in a demon's gut, and inside a soul battery which uses souls as an energy source, are the same. Both are maddening and will eventually kill off the soul, it's just that one is organic and the other inorganic (and I'd imagine soul batteries run through souls faster given that the White Mantle killed "thousands" of chosen within a 5 or 2 year span but in the Ring of Fire we only see a few dozen soul batteries being stored).

    The only case of "immediate death of souls" we're told about is when Dhuum eats souls. This is suggested, albeit indirectly through all god lore we've gotten, to be due to the fact that gods - and former gods - can absorb any magic and make it part of themselves, as one of the attributes that make them gods (even former mortals like Kormir).

    The whole "disappear forever" is because, normally, it's pretty hard to kill a demon supercharged on the power of many souls. The Eater of Souls is talked about as if being a very tough demon, but we're the Commander so that didn't matter, but the chances of someone coming around that could do something when, apparently, The Judge could not would be so abysmally small that for all intents and purposes, defeat would mean the Commander's soul disappearing forever (after a few centuries of tormenting digestion).

  • @Castigator.3470 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Eekasqueak.7850 said:
    If the consequence is death and that consequence happens anyway I feel like it going away is very heavily implied.

    It would seem rather pointless if it went away at death, since back when it was designed, it just meant the White Mantle had to get a monk with a resurrection spell. Then bam, they could torture all those juicy secrets out of the agent.

    That depends on whether or not you can be resurrected against your will. In some RPGs this is flat out impossible, once the soul has moved on to the afterlife.
    In all cases of resurrection in GW1 we, the players, obviously wanted to continue playing. As for Balthazar, he had to physically go into the Mists and deploy a soul eater into the domain of the lost to force spirits into his forged army, who didn't even remember their names. On the other hand, those make the perfect brainwashable recruits for that purpose.
    Palawa Joko apparently invented that technique, but his eaters only disperse the ghosts. The ghosts get mad*, if you repeat that often enough.
    Zhaitan's undead were not necessarily the same spirits as the originals. The only spirits he could get, were they Royal Family, who are still around even after Zhaitan's death. They have some unfinished business in Orr.

    *Understandable, to them it's like being killed in PvP over and over again, which tends to grind even on robust ghosts.

    during human PS, the orders of tyria pact, we summon a spirit of certain pirate - judging from priestess incantations - regardless of the will of said spirit.

    so if "gifted" necromancer priestess of grenth can forcibly summon a spirit from the underworld for interrogation in modern tyria (when influence of the six is much weaker than it used to be) I see no issue with monk being able to forcibly shove that spirit into.... well for resurrection it'd be his body of old.

    speaking of Palawa Joko - he'd be interesting example on the case - because he does have a record of "awakening" people against their will, and for all intents and purposes we can validate so far - the souls are originals forced back into mumified body running on some sort of unspecified energy.....

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    But evidence does suggest that after a few centuries of excruciating digestion they cease to exist because just as we burn food for energy, demons would in turn be burning their food (aka souls) for energy.

    While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise. For example, 200 Years seems to be quite a bit of time to devour a soul to me. So what exactly is the evidence you mentioned? To me it looks like demons just like to keep the souls in their stomach, to “feed upon for eternity” (Family Soul), indicating they never finish digesting them. That might also explain why demons regard them such a tasty delicacy - maybe I would also enjoy my food more if I could keep tasting it for all eternity.

    This is suggested, albeit indirectly through all god lore we've gotten, to be due to the fact that gods - and former gods - can absorb any magic and make it part of themselves, as one of the attributes that make them gods (even former mortals like Kormir).

    We also don’t know what makes someone a god. As promising as the theses sounds, it is mere speculation that gods must fulfil the criteria to be able to “absorb any magic and make it part of themselves”, to be what they are. That the gods decided to govern about different aspects of magic could just as well hint at them having favourite aspects of magic and maybe at the same time incompatibilities for others. We can’t know anything for sure, since we don’t even have a clear definition for the word god in the GW2 universe (and of course many different definitions in our own, but those don’t matter here). All we have to work with is that they all seem to have vast amounts of magic and something like a divine spark/light, but even that is questionable with someone like Dhuum. Speaking of fallen/former gods, if they were able to consume all kinds of magic, wouldn’t Dhuum be able to consume the magic seal keeping him in place? Abaddon even had his full divinity left, why couldn’t he consume Balthazars magical bonds?

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 9, 2018

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise.

    Not really explicit proof, but we're constantly being told about the finality of a soul being devoured by a demon, despite having on multiple occasions cut up a demon to free the soul. It wouldn't really be all that final, if it was being digested for all eternity.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    As promising as the theses sounds, it is mere speculation that gods must fulfil the criteria to be able to “absorb any magic and make it part of themselves”, to be what they are.

    Balthazar and Dhuum both show that (former) gods are able to absorb magic without much penalty. And combined, we see them absorbing magic from multiple sources: bloodstone, Elder Dragon, and souls being the prime cases. And unlike mortals who go crazy from exposure to a high concentration of magic, these two do not change in personality or appearance.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    That the gods decided to govern about different aspects of magic could just as well hint at them having favourite aspects of magic and maybe at the same time incompatibilities for others.

    In regards to the secondary and tritiary domains, this seems to be true. Kormir having no water relevance, while Lyssa picking it up officially after Nightfall, and Dhuum having no relation to ice while Grenth does (and did before ascending into godhood), shows this well. However, the primary domains seem stuck to them - both Grenth and Dhuum were gods of death, even if only one were a god of ice and darkness too; both and Kormir were gods of knowledge, even if only one was a god of water and the other a god of spirit and order.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    We can’t know anything for sure, since we don’t even have a clear definition for the word god in the GW2 universe (and of course many different definitions in our own, but those don’t matter here). All we have to work with is that they all seem to have vast amounts of magic and something like a divine spark/light, but even that is questionable with someone like Dhuum.

    We don't know if non-Six gods follow the same rules as the Six, but we do have some defined rules for the Six. It's more than simply "have vast amounts of magic". Attributes of the Six include:

    • Specific divine magic, which is indestructible and needs a host.
    • Has an aura that blinds mortals that look upon them.
    • Is capable of vast terraforming and transforming living beings.
    • Over generations, has a specific domain their specific divine magic is connected to. Related: the knowledge and power of previous gods combines with the knowledge and will of the replacement (when a god is killed).
    • Body breaks apart upon death, and appears to be hollow (no blood, muscle, etc.). Related: They themselves do not seem to be biologically alive; Kormir is said to [have died](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Koss_on_Koss_(book%29) upon ascending, while Balthazar [was scanned](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Heart_of_the_Volcano_(story%29#Dialogue) and had no vitals registered, he merely registered on the scanner as pure magical energy.
    • Divinity can be stripped without killing the god, draining them of power but not restoring their biological design.
    • Unconfirmed but heavily implied: a single god cannot have the power of multiple gods nor can a god's power be divided (otherwise they would have split Abaddon's power among themselves).

    These are all established facts that are, if not explicitly stated, shown through the game.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Speaking of fallen/former gods, if they were able to consume all kinds of magic, wouldn’t Dhuum be able to consume the magic seal keeping him in place? Abaddon even had his full divinity left, why couldn’t he consume Balthazars magical bonds?

    Presumably just as there is magic the Elder Dragons cannot consume, there'd be magic the Six Gods cannot consume, fallen or not. This is likely why a specific ritual was needed to imprison Dhuum, and Abaddon needed to be restrained by chains forged by Balthazar. Normal magical restraints likely wouldn't have lasted.

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise.

    Not really explicit proof, but we're constantly being told about the finality of a soul being devoured by a demon, despite having on multiple occasions cut up a demon to free the soul. It wouldn't really be all that final, if it was being digested for all eternity.

    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    As promising as the theses sounds, it is mere speculation that gods must fulfil the criteria to be able to “absorb any magic and make it part of themselves”, to be what they are.

    Balthazar and Dhuum both show that (former) gods are able to absorb magic without much penalty. And combined, we see them absorbing magic from multiple sources: bloodstone, Elder Dragon, and souls being the prime cases. And unlike mortals who go crazy from exposure to a high concentration of magic, these two do not change in personality or appearance.

    There is a big difference between saying something is an attribute that is needed to be a god and showing that the (former) gods we met also shared a characteristic. There is no definition of what makes a god in GW2, neither ingame nor outside of it, so discussing such things is fruitless at best.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    We don't know if non-Six gods follow the same rules as the Six, but we do have some defined rules [emboldened by me] for the Six. It's more than simply "have vast amounts of magic". Attributes of the Six include:
    [...]
    These are all established facts that are, if not explicitly stated, shown through the game.

    And here we are again. Those are NOT defined rules. We lack a definition, which was the main point of my post. I would argue that not even all the Gods we encounter share the characteristics you listed there. For example, the blinding aura: Abaddon lacked such an aura. Even in his fallen form, he held his divinity in him. No blinding aura though. We had the blind condition in GW1, which was explicitly not used, so no excuse there. I would go a step further and say that from the 4 (former) gods we interact with, one is totally different from the others: Not only can Dhuum apparently not be killed, he also is able to amaze power in a unique way. We know that Abaddon did not worked in the same way. While I personally really like that character feature, as I think it makes Dhuum appear more of a manifestation of a concept than the other gods (Dhuums only known attribute was after all death, the other ones have multiple layers), it clearly shows that the gods do not follow the same set of rules. You claim that there are many established facts around them, which is true to a certain extent, but there are far more mysteries and differences between them than similarities.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Speaking of fallen/former gods, if they were able to consume all kinds of magic, wouldn’t Dhuum be able to consume the magic seal keeping him in place? Abaddon even had his full divinity left, why couldn’t he consume Balthazars magical bonds?

    Presumably just as there is magic the Elder Dragons cannot consume, there'd be magic the Six Gods cannot consume, fallen or not. This is likely why a specific ritual was needed to imprison Dhuum, and Abaddon needed to be restrained by chains forged by Balthazar. Normal magical restraints likely wouldn't have lasted.

    You stated that gods could “absorb any magic”, going as far as to say that it is “one of the attributes that make them gods”. I am surly not cherry picking when I say that divine magic still being magic means that at least with Abaddon we can see this is not the case, which was my point here, showing again that any attempt at defining the human deities is pseudoscientific at best.

  • Eekasqueak.7850Eekasqueak.7850 Member ✭✭✭

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise.

    Not really explicit proof, but we're constantly being told about the finality of a soul being devoured by a demon, despite having on multiple occasions cut up a demon to free the soul. It wouldn't really be all that final, if it was being digested for all eternity.

    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    As promising as the theses sounds, it is mere speculation that gods must fulfil the criteria to be able to “absorb any magic and make it part of themselves”, to be what they are.

    Balthazar and Dhuum both show that (former) gods are able to absorb magic without much penalty. And combined, we see them absorbing magic from multiple sources: bloodstone, Elder Dragon, and souls being the prime cases. And unlike mortals who go crazy from exposure to a high concentration of magic, these two do not change in personality or appearance.

    There is a big difference between saying something is an attribute that is needed to be a god and showing that the (former) gods we met also shared a characteristic. There is no definition of what makes a god in GW2, neither ingame nor outside of it, so discussing such things is fruitless at best.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    We don't know if non-Six gods follow the same rules as the Six, but we do have some defined rules [emboldened by me] for the Six. It's more than simply "have vast amounts of magic". Attributes of the Six include:
    [...]
    These are all established facts that are, if not explicitly stated, shown through the game.

    And here we are again. Those are NOT defined rules. We lack a definition, which was the main point of my post. I would argue that not even all the Gods we encounter share the characteristics you listed there. For example, the blinding aura: Abaddon lacked such an aura. Even in his fallen form, he held his divinity in him. No blinding aura though. We had the blind condition in GW1, which was explicitly not used, so no excuse there. I would go a step further and say that from the 4 (former) gods we interact with, one is totally different from the others: Not only can Dhuum apparently not be killed, he also is able to amaze power in a unique way. We know that Abaddon did not worked in the same way. While I personally really like that character feature, as I think it makes Dhuum appear more of a manifestation of a concept than the other gods (Dhuums only known attribute was after all death, the other ones have multiple layers), it clearly shows that the gods do not follow the same set of rules. You claim that there are many established facts around them, which is true to a certain extent, but there are far more mysteries and differences between them than similarities.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Speaking of fallen/former gods, if they were able to consume all kinds of magic, wouldn’t Dhuum be able to consume the magic seal keeping him in place? Abaddon even had his full divinity left, why couldn’t he consume Balthazars magical bonds?

    Presumably just as there is magic the Elder Dragons cannot consume, there'd be magic the Six Gods cannot consume, fallen or not. This is likely why a specific ritual was needed to imprison Dhuum, and Abaddon needed to be restrained by chains forged by Balthazar. Normal magical restraints likely wouldn't have lasted.

    You stated that gods could “absorb any magic”, going as far as to say that it is “one of the attributes that make them gods”. I am surly not cherry picking when I say that divine magic still being magic means that at least with Abaddon we can see this is not the case, which was my point here, showing again that any attempt at defining the human deities is pseudoscientific at best.

    We only see the blinding thing from Kormir and I assume it to be an attribute of hers. Related to how she was blinded in her mortal life. Also justice is blind, etc

  • @Eekasqueak.7850 said:
    We only see the blinding thing from Kormir and I assume it to be an attribute of hers. Related to how she was blinded in her mortal life. Also justice is blind, etc

    I would love this to be true, since it fits her perfectly, but there was the whole Statue of the Gods story that basically stated that the blinding effect was true for all of the 6 “original” (meaning the 6 that stepped foot on Tyria first) gods, which Konig is most likely referring to.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The blinding effect, honestly, does feel like something Arenanet thought of post-Nightfall.

    However, it is possible that somewhere between Malchor and Nightfall, the gods found a way to prevent the blinding effect, or at least slow it down enough to be able to fight Abaddon with out it being a factor. - and that's what the blessing they bestowed on the GW1 heroes was for. The effect also seems to be gradual: Malchor was able to keep his sight long enough to sculpt the gods, for instance, although he was never satisfied with Dwayna's, while the dimming of our vision while talking to Kormir isn't enough to actually stop us from seeing the illusions she uses to tell her story. The battle with Abaddon may have simply been too brief for it to be a major factor (and the region you fight that battle in is pretty dark, so maybe that actually was ArenaNet trying to show 'your vision is dimming but not enough to justify a 90% miss chance').

  • @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

    I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

    The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    And here we are again. Those are NOT defined rules. We lack a definition, which was the main point of my post. I would argue that not even all the Gods we encounter share the characteristics you listed there. For example, the blinding aura: Abaddon lacked such an aura. Even in his fallen form, he held his divinity in him. No blinding aura though. We had the blind condition in GW1, which was explicitly not used, so no excuse there. I would go a step further and say that from the 4 (former) gods we interact with, one is totally different from the others: Not only can Dhuum apparently not be killed, he also is able to amaze power in a unique way. We know that Abaddon did not worked in the same way. While I personally really like that character feature, as I think it makes Dhuum appear more of a manifestation of a concept than the other gods (Dhuums only known attribute was after all death, the other ones have multiple layers), it clearly shows that the gods do not follow the same set of rules. You claim that there are many established facts around them, which is true to a certain extent, but there are far more mysteries and differences between them than similarities.

    When four+ gods show the same set of characteristics, despite being drastically different entities, they are defined rules. We don't need something in writing for it to be defined.

    As for the blinding aura on Abaddon: that didn't exist in the lore in GW1, it was added to the lore with GW2, and Anet never went back to add it in (as is oft the case for their treatment of old gameplay). This is what one would call a retroactive continuity issue. It was made part of the lore for GW2, and when the devs were asked about Abaddon they had replied along the lines of "like when Malchor rested his eyes between sculpting the gods before Dwayna, GW1 players didn't look upon Abaddon long enough to go blind." This was, iirc, on GuildWars2Guru forums so with them down it'd be pretty much impossible to find the source, unfortunately.

    About Dhuum: Technically speaking, nothing says Dhuum is immortal; what is said is that Grenth wasn't able to kill him. Now this may mean he is unable to die (if so, based on his model, this may be because his body already broke apart but for some unexplained reason his soul maintained form; perhaps because he was the god of death), just that Grenth couldn't kill him when usurping him and decided to imprison him. Given the catastrophic nature of killing even former gods, Grenth and/or the Reapers may have decided to simply keep him imprisoned and alive than risk his magic going rampant for xyz reason. However, I would note that his body having already broken apart and yet still being alive wouldn't be all that unique, as Abaddon's body was destroyed in his defeat at the Crystal Desert in Year 0; the body we see in Nightfall was being created out of the landscape of the Realm of Torment. Dhuum is also not unique in taking power from souls, as we have a parable of Balthazar eating a soul, and just as Kormir states her personality was a mix of Abaddon's and her former mortal personality, Balthazar states in the parable that the personality of the soul will be forever a part of him.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    You stated that gods could “absorb any magic”, going as far as to say that it is “one of the attributes that make them gods”. I am surly not cherry picking when I say that divine magic still being magic means that at least with Abaddon we can see this is not the case, which was my point here, showing again that any attempt at defining the human deities is pseudoscientific at best.

    Being hung up on my exact wording is cherry picking.

    "The gods can absorb almost any magic, and do so safely." - is that better?

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

    I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

    The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

    I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

    When four+ gods show the same set of characteristics, despite being drastically different entities, they are defined rules. We don't need something in writing for it to be defined.

    I am afraid we use very different definitions of the word defined here. If you want to go with the colloquial variant that is enough to describe some characteristic features of a face, I have zero problems with it, but the word foremost implies an intensional definition, which must have been fulfilled by all of the individuals described by the word. And as I pointed out, this is not the case at all with the gods.

    As for the blinding aura on Abaddon: that didn't exist in the lore in GW1, it was added to the lore with GW2, and Anet never went back to add it in (as is oft the case for their treatment of old gameplay). This is what one would call a retroactive continuity issue. It was made part of the lore for GW2, and when the devs were asked about Abaddon they had replied along the lines of "like when Malchor rested his eyes between sculpting the gods before Dwayna, GW1 players didn't look upon Abaddon long enough to go blind." This was, iirc, on GuildWars2Guru forums so with them down it'd be pretty much impossible to find the source, unfortunately.

    I have a few problems with proves not being present in the finished product. We know that there were information and explanations given by the devs that turned out to be false, so I would be very careful with those. This one also makes not much sense, because we are instantly blinded by Kormir, so why wouldn’t that have happened with Abaddon in GW1 too? Yes, I am aware that they might simply not want to go back and change it, but right now the evidence in the game simply does not match your “defined” feature.

    About Dhuum: Technically speaking, nothing says Dhuum is immortal; what is said is that Grenth wasn't able to kill him. Now this may mean he is unable to die (if so, based on his model, this may be because his body already broke apart but for some unexplained reason his soul maintained form; perhaps because he was the god of death), just that Grenth couldn't kill him when usurping him and decided to imprison him. Given the catastrophic nature of killing even former gods, Grenth and/or the Reapers may have decided to simply keep him imprisoned and alive than risk his magic going rampant for xyz reason. However, I would note that his body having already broken apart and yet still being alive wouldn't be all that unique, as Abaddon's body was destroyed in his defeat at the Crystal Desert in Year 0; the body we see in Nightfall was being created out of the landscape of the Realm of Torment. Dhuum is also not unique in taking power from souls, as we have a parable of Balthazar eating a soul, and just as Kormir states her personality was a mix of Abaddon's and her former mortal personality, Balthazar states in the parable that the personality of the soul will be forever a part of him.

    I did not claim Dhuum to be immortal, though I would like that to be the case. You missed my point about the unique power though: Dhuum could amaze power by a soul being dispersed while it was in his realm, he did not have to consume them himself. None of the other gods so far show this power.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    You stated that gods could “absorb any magic”, going as far as to say that it is “one of the attributes that make them gods”. I am surly not cherry picking when I say that divine magic still being magic means that at least with Abaddon we can see this is not the case, which was my point here, showing again that any attempt at defining the human deities is pseudoscientific at best.

    Being hung up on my exact wording is cherry picking.

    "The gods can absorb almost any magic, and do so safely." - is that better?

    I would call it rightfully preciseness, but to each their own.

  • Narcemus.1348Narcemus.1348 Member ✭✭✭

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

    I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

    The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

    I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

    This isn't about demons, but it is about soul consumption. We know, from a tale, that Balthazar consumed the soul of a "Coward." Now, we can't prove that this tale is 100% true or just a parable, but if it were true, and souls continues to survive and would be released upon the death of their consumer, then the spirit of said coward would have been freed, but this did not seem to occur. I understand that this makes a lot of assumptions, but it does seem to point in the direction of soul extinction, as much as I hate the idea.

  • @Narcemus.1348 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

    I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

    The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

    I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

    This isn't about demons, but it is about soul consumption. We know, from a tale, that Balthazar consumed the soul of a "Coward." Now, we can't prove that this tale is 100% true or just a parable, but if it were true, and souls continues to survive and would be released upon the death of their consumer, then the spirit of said coward would have been freed, but this did not seem to occur. I understand that this makes a lot of assumptions, but it does seem to point in the direction of soul extinction, as much as I hate the idea.

    I thought it is only about demons by now. At least I did already exclude (former) Gods here and Konig did exclude scarabs, so not much else is left:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise.

    Not really explicit proof, but we're constantly being told about the finality of a soul being devoured by a demon, despite having on multiple occasions cut up a demon to free the soul. It wouldn't really be all that final, if it was being digested for all eternity.

    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons).

    But if we want to talk about Gods, the story does go like this:

    "You carried this coward when he lived. Now, I carry him, for he serves as my reminder that strength and courage are never to be taken for granted."

    To me this is implying that the spirit simply became a part of Balthazar, just like Abaddon is now a part of Kormir. It is up for debate if you want to call this kind of fusion the extinction of a soul, I can understand both opinions regarding this special case.

    While we are at it, there is a question I want to ask:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    When four+ gods show the same set of characteristics, despite being drastically different entities, they are defined rules. We don't need something in writing for it to be defined.

    I would really like to know where you get the number 4 (or even more) from. We have only met 2 Gods in person so far (as far as we know at least; as far stretched as XY = Lyssa sounds, we can’t be sure that some deity has not directly interacted with us in disguise, but I won’t account for those hypothetical cases here): Kormir and Abaddon. I am not even sure if I want to count these two as separate beings, since we know that Abaddon is part of Kormir once she ascends - and even then, they still only fill 1 out of 6 divine seats. The other two are for all that we know former deities. While I would give Dhuum the benefit of the doubt to have kept some of his divine spark, since it explains quite much (for example how Grenth managed to beat him, who, unlike Abaddon, was for all that we know in good condition. If Grenth already had some divinity in him from his mother from the start (we don’t know how procreation works with the gods), this might mean that not only could he have had a better chance at beating Dhuum, explaining the outcome of the battle, but he might also have been unable to absorb all of Dhuums divinity because of it. That would explain how Dhuum as a former God is still around on his own and is not just a part of Grenth.), we simply lack information about this case. Which means we are left with only one divine position that we can actually draw information from. That is… not the sample size you mentioned. To conclude any definition from a single sample and expect it to hold true for a group that is six times as large as the sample size… this sounds highly suspicious. Not only that, but most of the information you mentioned we have from ingame sources, meaning they are unreliable. Even Kormir may not tell us the whole truth, since potentially leaving out some important facts would be quite befitting her, considering Abaddon, former God of Secrets, is a part of her now. So please forgive me my “cherry picking” as you called it before, but I would really prefer to have this kind of discussion without exaggerating the knowledge we truly have about the Gods.

  • Durzlla.6295Durzlla.6295 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:
    I even remember some short stories from pre-launch of GW1 describing battle from historical guild wars where monks gets killed and the narratign warrior says out loud that "well, kitten if we die now, we die for good"

    as for rezzing important characters, my headcannon for this would be that resurrection magic A) would require body to be "mostly" intact B) original soul needs to be accessible C) needs to be able to overpower whatever was the source of that character dying in the first place.
    which would explain why people sacrificed on the bloodstone can't be revived (soul not available because it is trapped in bloodstone), not sure if I remember how exacly rurik or saidra died, but for Gadd - he died in explosion - it is very likely there was nothing really left to resurrect in there and for Togo - mere mortals can't overpower envoy's instakill-spell (which also contributes to PC death during factions campaign where Shiro just randomly kills whole party at a time, and it takes rest of envoys to revive us - but only under promise we deal with shiro afterwards)

    as for why it's gone, from what I understand the entity responsible for allowing it to work this way in the first place was grenth, so it would be logical that with grenth distancing himself away some of his gifts would weaken.....

    other possible issue in here is arcane energy (magic) needed to be channeled to perform the thing - please note that asuran PS arcdirectly states that because of EDs activity "ambient magical levels are dropping at alarming rate" - if they were dropping like this for better chunk of last 250 years you could assume these levels used to be MUCH higher during GW1 timeline giving humans more than enought of magic juice to channel into incredible things, which now may be not as accessible simply due to not enought of magic juice floating around to do it..... (or in case of more recent events - not enought SUITABLE arcane juice floating in the air ;) )

    but it's all speculation as good as any other....

    point to original point stays tho - when oath was designed resurrection magic was not uncommon thing, therefore it going away with one's death would make barely any sense in terms of prevention of SB intel leaking.

    Rurik and his guards died holding the line against the angry dwarfs (can’t remembwr their clan), away from the party as we opened up the gate so the ascalonian refugees and us could flee, there was literally no chance for us to get the body without dying ourselves. He was THEN turned into an Undead minion via Lich Magic, who was killed again, and told us to leave him, and then his body was claimed by the Volcano when it erupted, so him not getting revived makes perfect sense imo.

    Saidra died in a similar fashion, where she ran off to distract Mursaat (pre us being infused) to give us time to escape, so her body wasn’t able to be recovered until sometime later by the Deldrimor dwarves who brought her ashes to Kaira. It’s not said if the dwarves cremated her, or if the mursaat did as a way to prevent her from coming back given how much of a nuisance she had been.

    "But my children sing to me. Listen. They sing dark, delicious notes about power and family. As their mother, I have to grant them their wish."

  • Narcemus.1348Narcemus.1348 Member ✭✭✭

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Narcemus.1348 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

    I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

    The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

    I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

    This isn't about demons, but it is about soul consumption. We know, from a tale, that Balthazar consumed the soul of a "Coward." Now, we can't prove that this tale is 100% true or just a parable, but if it were true, and souls continues to survive and would be released upon the death of their consumer, then the spirit of said coward would have been freed, but this did not seem to occur. I understand that this makes a lot of assumptions, but it does seem to point in the direction of soul extinction, as much as I hate the idea.

    I thought it is only about demons by now. At least I did already exclude (former) Gods here and Konig did exclude scarabs, so not much else is left:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise.

    Not really explicit proof, but we're constantly being told about the finality of a soul being devoured by a demon, despite having on multiple occasions cut up a demon to free the soul. It wouldn't really be all that final, if it was being digested for all eternity.

    Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons).

    But if we want to talk about Gods, the story does go like this:

    "You carried this coward when he lived. Now, I carry him, for he serves as my reminder that strength and courage are never to be taken for granted."

    To me this is implying that the spirit simply became a part of Balthazar, just like Abaddon is now a part of Kormir. It is up for debate if you want to call this kind of fusion the extinction of a soul, I can understand both opinions regarding this special case.

    I personally would consider when one loses their individuality forever they are no longer themselves and are thus, in this case, Soul Extinct. Especially if those words were just Balthazar trying to use pretty words to explain that the coward was now a part of Balthazar in the same way that a Chipotle burrito is a part of me after lunch. The wording could be understood both ways. But I digress. Personal opinion doesn't make fact, especially when dealing in matters that we have no factual evidence of, anyways.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11, 2018

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    I am afraid we use very different definitions of the word defined here. If you want to go with the colloquial variant that is enough to describe some characteristic features of a face, I have zero problems with it, but the word foremost implies an intensional definition, which must have been fulfilled by all of the individuals described by the word. And as I pointed out, this is not the case at all with the gods.

    There is yet to be a god (current or former) that breaks the similarities. With the exception of Abaddon blinding GW1 players, but as said, this was due to that piece of lore being developed for the story of Malchor, which was post-Nightfall lore design.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    I have a few problems with proves not being present in the finished product. We know that there were information and explanations given by the devs that turned out to be false, so I would be very careful with those. This one also makes not much sense, because we are instantly blinded by Kormir, so why wouldn’t that have happened with Abaddon in GW1 too? Yes, I am aware that they might simply not want to go back and change it, but right now the evidence in the game simply does not match your “defined” feature.

    Forum posts are basically treated by the devs as "accurate until we decide to change it" ever since a certain developer couldn't keep her facts straight and/or kept retconing forum discussion posts that were cited on the wiki for all to see. The only time game trumps non-game is when they're contradictive, and this isn't contradictive (rather, it's game and game that seems contradictive; non-game is trying to explain why it isn't, per se).

    Blinding doesn't happen instantly, btw. It was a progression of the screen becoming darker during Facing the Truth (iirc, you need post-processing on to see the effect) and we recover almost instantly once she leaves, and the fact it doesn't happen instantly is also why Malchor was able to sculpt each of the six gods one by one; he only went blind because he stared too long at Dwayna. We didn't stare at Abaddon or Kormir too long in GW1 (in fact, the main tactic for fighting Abaddon is to periodically turn away and run when the graven monoliths spawn).

    And if you cannot take Word of God as evidence of retcon, which is indeed fact, then consider this: Abaddon's powers were locked away behind eight gates, and at the time we confront him, he had unlocked merely 3 gates. We fought him at 3/8th his full power. Since it is the divine power which causes blindness, and he could not access it all, perhaps then, the lack of blindness was caused by this.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    I did not claim Dhuum to be immortal, though I would like that to be the case. You missed my point about the unique power though: Dhuum could amaze power by a soul being dispersed while it was in his realm, he did not have to consume them himself. None of the other gods so far show this power.

    You stated, and I quote, "Not only can Dhuum apparently not be killed". "Cannot be killed" = "immortal".

    And Dhuum being able to amass power by a soul being dispersed is actually false. The Hall of Chains raid explains it rather point blank, that Dhuum devoured the souls of those slain in the Underworld:

    Character name: How did Dhuum get free?
    Desmina: With every death, he grows stronger. Dhuum devoured souls for centuries to regain the power to break his bonds.
    Desmina: He then manipulated the river and corrupted much of the Underworld.

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    I would really like to know where you get the number 4 (or even more) from. We have only met 2 Gods in person so far (as far as we know at least; as far stretched as XY = Lyssa sounds, we can’t be sure that some deity has not directly interacted with us in disguise, but I won’t account for those hypothetical cases here): Kormir and Abaddon.

    Kormir, Abaddon, Dhuum, and Balthazar. Former gods are still physically the same as gods, they just lack the divine power which blinds folks. I added plus because we know the other gods follow at least some of the similarities those four provide (full fledged, non-imprisoned gods blinding mortals) and there is nothing to indicate they break out of all the other similarities.

    And yes, current and former gods can be grouped together:

    • There are stated similarities between former Balthazar and current Kormir (biologically dead)
    • There are stated similarities between current Balthazar and former Dhuum (consume souls results in inevitable end of soul)
    • There are stated similarities between fallen/current Abaddon and former Dhuum (given Abaddon's power being strangeheld, it's hard to argue whether we see him on par to a former god or on par to a current god in GW1) (can maintain a non-physical body state of "living")
    • There are stated similarities between current Balthazar and current Kormir and other current gods (blinds mortals)
    • There are stated similarities between current Balthazar and current Dhuum (can be stripped of divine power without death)
    • There are stated similarities between former Balthazar and fallen/current Abaddon (death causes body to break apart; combining souls results in merged personalities)
  • About the blinding

    I have always considered it to be more an act of "mercy" from the gods to blind mortals cuz it would make em turn insane to directly look at them with malchor being an example cuz he killed himself in his love for dwayna adding some known issues a lot of artists seem to have (at least those who go for their own definement of perfection but arent able to reach it)

    so for me it was never necessary for a god to blind us on sight but an act of their will in order to protect those who are looking at them - it is not a devine Feature

    devine entities that we are fighting against ofc would not Show this "mercy" to us

    that said in gw1 the PC was not some random human either cuz he/she ws ascended/ closer to the stars/ whatever it was called in nightfall and cuz of this added with strong selfawareness and willpower he could have had some resistance to the maddening effect

    in gw2 the PC is not ascended, sure during ls2 a copy of the ritual is reacted but ist also stated by ogden, that we would not ascend from it .. propably

    ofc most of this are not proven Facts and just some headcanon from me in personal so feel free to Show me were im wrong
    also i admit (again) that im far to lazy to search for proof of the things that are indeed stated somewere an cuz of that may not be 100% accurate too

  • Castigator.3470Castigator.3470 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 11, 2018

    Hmm. Maybe there is some form of reincarnation when it comes to souls. When they lose all their life energy, they might go dormant and eventually be reborn as something else. Maybe a mist entity, maybe a creature of flesh and blood, but the person they originally were is gone. That could explain why the judge warned the commander in such a drastic manner, because eventually, the commander may have become a daeva on Atreia, or something like that. Effectively removed from the worlds and context of GW2.

    As for the Shining Blade oath: Let's hope that we are no longer bound by that, or the commander managed to do the sensible thing and cross fingers. I mean any Order of Whispers PC would have the sense to avoid being forced into such a bad situation. And if need be, we may be able to magically remove the curse, similar to how Glint was cleansed of Kralkatorrik's influence which must have been far more powerful magic to begin with.

  • @norbes.3620 said:
    that said in gw1 the PC was not some random human either cuz he/she ws ascended/ closer to the stars/ whatever it was called in nightfall

    I'll just throw in here random 2 cents that nightfall didn't have "ascention equivalent". While ascalonians had to perform ascention rituals, canthans went for "getting closer to the stars", elonian sunspears just got their kitten kicked at gandara siege......

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    I did not claim Dhuum to be immortal, though I would like that to be the case. You missed my point about the unique power though: Dhuum could amaze power by a soul being dispersed while it was in his realm, he did not have to consume them himself. None of the other gods so far show this power.

    You stated, and I quote, "Not only can Dhuum apparently not be killed". "Cannot be killed" = "immortal".

    There is a big difference between being immortal and being unkillable: Something that is merely unkillable cannot be killed but might cease to exist with time. You can see that non-living things. For example: A legend may be unkillable (which means that even with your best efforts you can’t actively make it end), but the same time not immortal, because people will forget about it over time. To kill includes an effort to end an existence, something mortality does not imply. We might not be able to kill Dhuum in any way, but he may still cease to exist one day (for example when every lived cease to exist, leaving him without a cause). I find the idea of Dhuum being more or less the only thing in existence after the end of all life kind of satisfying and would like him feeling finally fulfilled after all this time. It seems like a fitting “end” for him.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    And Dhuum being able to amass power by a soul being dispersed is actually false. The Hall of Chains raid explains it rather point blank, that Dhuum devoured the souls of those slain in the Underworld:

    Please explain to me how he should have done so in GW1 then? Or even GW2. While we know that he actively feasts on them when he can, he certainly can’t when being sealed in the hall. If he had to actively reach a soul, he would have never woken up, since they don’t just stumble in there. Instead we have King Frozenwind explain:

    “Every time a creature in the Underworld dies, the release of life energy adds to Dhuum's vigor. Too many beings are being slain in the Underworld. Dhuum grows both strong and restless.”

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Former gods are still physically the same as gods, they just lack the divine power which blinds folks.

    Do we have proof for this or is that just your personal opinion again? Dhuum and Balthazar seem to behave very differently. Dhuum possessing an armor that is actually left behind after his defeat is not the same as Balthazar creating a real looking Body. And even if you want to count that as the same (I do not), how do you want to know if the same rules apply to all of the other gods? I am still shocked that you really think it would be possible to deduct general rules for all the unknown former gods based on this sample size.

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @norbes.3620 said:
    that said in gw1 the PC was not some random human either cuz he/she ws ascended/ closer to the stars/ whatever it was called in nightfall

    I'll just throw in here random 2 cents that nightfall didn't have "ascention equivalent". While ascalonians had to perform ascention rituals, canthans went for "getting closer to the stars", elonian sunspears just got their kitten kicked at gandara siege......

    There was a comment somewhere that the writers thought it would be to bothersome to always include such an arc into the story, especially since it wasn’t needed in nightfall, which is apparently why they left it out. Not necessarily a bad decision if you ask me.

    @Castigator.3470 said:
    Hmm. Maybe there is some form of reincarnation when it comes to souls. When they lose all their life energy, they might go dormant and eventually be reborn as something else. Maybe a mist entity, maybe a creature of flesh and blood, but the person they originally were is gone.

    I think that also depends on what you want to count as a soul, which we also have never clearly specified. For example, we all seem to count spirits as souls, but does the soul include the personality and/or knowledge of the spirit, or is it merely a kind of energy?

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11, 2018

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    There is a big difference between being immortal and being unkillable:

    im·mor·tal
    i(m)ˈmôrdl/Submit
    adjective
    1.
    living forever; never dying or decaying.

    Technically speaking, immortal means unkillable, by either age or blade. Mind you, a lot of people use it improperly to mean merely non-aging, probably because it sounds better. But that's not its meaning at all.

    Please explain to me how he should have done so in GW1 then? Or even GW2. While we know that he actively feasts on them when he can, he certainly can’t when being sealed in the hall. If he had to actively reach a soul, he would have never woken up, since they don’t just stumble in there. Instead we have King Frozenwind explain:

    “Every time a creature in the Underworld dies, the release of life energy adds to Dhuum's vigor. Too many beings are being slain in the Underworld. Dhuum grows both strong and restless.”

    A discussion is rather pointless if you are presented with facts, with sources, and deny them. Desmina outright states that Dhuum feasts on souls when he was sealed within the Hall of Judgment. King Frozenwind's statement does not counter this.

    Do we have proof for this or is that just your personal opinion again? Dhuum and Balthazar seem to behave very differently. Dhuum possessing an armor that is actually left behind after his defeat is not the same as Balthazar creating a real looking Body. And even if you want to count that as the same (I do not), how do you want to know if the same rules apply to all of the other gods? I am still shocked that you really think it would be possible to deduct general rules for all the unknown former gods based on this sample size.

    Again, I've presented my evidence for my statements. There are differences, yes, because their situations are different. But where there are differences between A and B, we see B being the same as C. In your example of Dhuum possessing armor, Abaddon's appearance is the same after he survived his body's destruction. This is most notable with seeing the Abaddon Glider which is GW2's recreation of his GW1 model (used during Facing the Truth too - you can see the shadowy body connecting the arms and head there, but because his model is made transparent, the already transparent body is harder to see). It would seem that unlike Balthazar, but like Abaddon, Dhuum lost/got rid of his original body at some point.

    Basically, as I pointed out with my bullet list, we see Dhuum, Balthazar, Kormir, and Abaddon with several attributes each. All attributes are not shared among all four beings, but any one attribute is shared by at least one other god or former god.

    So no, it is not my personal opinion. It is the conclusion reached by observing facts presented through visuals and words throughout the franchise. It's a simple logic puzzle.

    There is, obviously, room for error. But it is downright false to state we have nothing, which you have been claiming.

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    There is a big difference between being immortal and being unkillable:

    im·mor·tal
    i(m)ˈmôrdl/Submit
    adjective
    1.
    living forever; never dying or decaying.

    Technically speaking, immortal means unkillable, by either age or blade. Mind you, a lot of people use it improperly to mean merely non-aging, probably because it sounds better. But that's not its meaning at all.

    Maybe you should reread my post so you can see the difference between the two words and the reason why they are not synonyms? Being killed and dying are two fundamentally different things.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    Please explain to me how he should have done so in GW1 then? Or even GW2. While we know that he actively feasts on them when he can, he certainly can’t when being sealed in the hall. If he had to actively reach a soul, he would have never woken up, since they don’t just stumble in there. Instead we have King Frozenwind explain:

    “Every time a creature in the Underworld dies, the release of life energy adds to Dhuum's vigor. Too many beings are being slain in the Underworld. Dhuum grows both strong and restless.”

    A discussion is rather pointless if you are presented with facts, with sources, and deny them. Desmina outright states that Dhuum feasts on souls when he was sealed within the Hall of Judgment. King Frozenwind's statement does not counter this.

    The fact that he could not have reached them when being chained down does though. If all deaths in the underworld, regardless of where they happen, help Dhuum regain strength, this means that Desmina’s phrasing is off while King Frozenwind’s is on point. Its interesting that you claim I deny facts when you seem to ignore the very essence of the points I am making.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    Do we have proof for this or is that just your personal opinion again? Dhuum and Balthazar seem to behave very differently. Dhuum possessing an armor that is actually left behind after his defeat is not the same as Balthazar creating a real looking Body. And even if you want to count that as the same (I do not), how do you want to know if the same rules apply to all of the other gods? I am still shocked that you really think it would be possible to deduct general rules for all the unknown former gods based on this sample size.

    Again, I've presented my evidence for my statements. There are differences, yes, because their situations are different. But where there are differences between A and B, we see B being the same as C. In your example of Dhuum possessing armor, Abaddon's appearance is the same after he survived his body's destruction. This is most notable with seeing the Abaddon Glider which is GW2's recreation of his GW1 model (used during Facing the Truth too - you can see the shadowy body connecting the arms and head there, but because his model is made transparent, the already transparent body is harder to see). It would seem that unlike Balthazar, but like Abaddon, Dhuum lost/got rid of his original body at some point.

    Basically, as I pointed out with my bullet list, we see Dhuum, Balthazar, Kormir, and Abaddon with several attributes each. All attributes are not shared among all four beings, but any one attribute is shared by at least one other god or former god.

    So no, it is not my personal opinion. It is the conclusion reached by observing facts presented through visuals and words throughout the franchise. It's a simple logic puzzle.

    There is, obviously, room for error. But it is downright false to state we have nothing, which you have been claiming.

    I am afraid our views on that differ greatly. Not only do we not know if Dhuum really lost his body (he even changed appearances between GW1 and GW2 for no reason), but we also know that Balthazar looked drastically different when he met a certain Charr in the mists. Balthazar is not known for his great illusions (he needs Lyssas mirror after all), which leaves me thinking that Balthazar did not keep his body intact but instead only reformed it after he got the sword.

  • Illconceived Was Na.9781Illconceived Was Na.9781 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11, 2018

    Getting back to the Oath of Confidence, here's what we actually know from the story instance.

    tl;dr It's not just about keeping secrets. It binds the taker to prevent them from working against Kryta and spilling Shining Blade blood.


    PC: I'll take the oath, if that's required. But, I can't entrust the aspect to you until I know it won't be misused.
    Countess Anise: You told him/her about the oath?
    Exemplar Kerida: Talking about the oath won't kill me. Just telling the secrets. Besides, he/she wouldn't shut up about it.
    Exemplar Kerida: You're not Shining Blade. We'd never allow you to take the oath.
    Countess Anise: Actually, I think it's a wonderful idea. I can imagine no more trustworthy—and useful—a person to have on our side.


    Exemplar Kerida: I just love how much this is going to hurt.
    PC: It's just an oath of secrecy, right?
    Exemplar Kerida: (laugh)
    Countess Anise: There's more to it than promising to keep our secrets. The magic involved requires igniting certain of your emotions.
    Exemplar Kerida: You could die.
    PC: What do I have to do? I can't be at [race dependent phrase] beck and call. I have an important mission to complete.
    Countess Anise: You will be an agent at large. You will have special freedoms, so long as you're not working against Kryta.


    Exemplar Mehid: With this oath, you will be bound to defend our secrets. You attempt to reveal them on pain of death. Repeat after me.
    Exemplar Salia: I am bound by the blood spilled from Shining Blade veins.
    Exemplar Mehid: The secrets of the Shining Blade are mine to safeguard beyond this circle.
    Exemplar Salia: I will breathe my last breath before I will betray this oath.
    Exemplar Mehid: It has been vowed, so shall it be! The trusted is now complicit in our mysteries and a protector of the kingdom.
    Exemplar Mehid: You're an honored agent of the timeless Shining Blade. We may now share our secrets with you, without penalty.

    "With great power comes not-so-great utility bills."

  • To me, that definitely ties the PC's hands in a way that can come back to bite. There are all sorts of ways to get around "not telling secrets" and betraying an organization (see for example Isaac Asimov's stories on the three laws of robotics and how "do no harm" can be bypassed via misdirection). So someone in the SB could undermine the organization with the PC powerless to act or to explain the issue to the others in Fate's Razor Dragon's Watch.

    I agree that it's unclear if the magical binding is removed on death or if it extends into the mists. I suspect not even the Shining Blade would know.

    And finally, in terms of storytelling, I hated it. I think it was uncharacteristic of the PC, who has up to then, always gone out of their way to avoid committing to organizations, and had loyalty only to what is best for Tyria (sometimes focusing on near-term threats without paying attention to the long-term ones). The act of taking an Oath to a racially-specific, regionally-specific group felt uncharacteristic and threw me right out of the story.

    It also seemed like fake tension to me: create an impossible situation in which a key character can't reveal a key plot point, then resolve it simplistically by making the PC part of the same organization. To me, it would have been fine to have just skipped the nonsense and had Anise overrule Kerida and reveal the secret.

    "With great power comes not-so-great utility bills."

  • @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    To me, that definitely ties the PC's hands in a way that can come back to bite. There are all sorts of ways to get around "not telling secrets" and betraying an organization (see for example Isaac Asimov's stories on the three laws of robotics and how "do no harm" can be bypassed via misdirection). So someone in the SB could undermine the organization with the PC powerless to act or to explain the issue to the others in Fate's Razor Dragon's Watch.

    I agree that it's unclear if the magical binding is removed on death or if it extends into the mists. I suspect not even the Shining Blade would know.

    And finally, in terms of storytelling, I hated it. I think it was uncharacteristic of the PC, who has up to then, always gone out of their way to avoid committing to organizations, and had loyalty only to what is best for Tyria (sometimes focusing on near-term threats without paying attention to the long-term ones). The act of taking an Oath to a racially-specific, regionally-specific group felt uncharacteristic and threw me right out of the story.

    It also seemed like fake tension to me: create an impossible situation in which a key character can't reveal a key plot point, then resolve it simplistically by making the PC part of the same organization. To me, it would have been fine to have just skipped the nonsense and had Anise overrule Kerida and reveal the secret.

    Yeah my Asura making an oath like this felt real silly.

  • @Eekasqueak.7850 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    To me, that definitely ties the PC's hands in a way that can come back to bite. There are all sorts of ways to get around "not telling secrets" and betraying an organization (see for example Isaac Asimov's stories on the three laws of robotics and how "do no harm" can be bypassed via misdirection). So someone in the SB could undermine the organization with the PC powerless to act or to explain the issue to the others in Fate's Razor Dragon's Watch.

    I agree that it's unclear if the magical binding is removed on death or if it extends into the mists. I suspect not even the Shining Blade would know.

    And finally, in terms of storytelling, I hated it. I think it was uncharacteristic of the PC, who has up to then, always gone out of their way to avoid committing to organizations, and had loyalty only to what is best for Tyria (sometimes focusing on near-term threats without paying attention to the long-term ones). The act of taking an Oath to a racially-specific, regionally-specific group felt uncharacteristic and threw me right out of the story.

    It also seemed like fake tension to me: create an impossible situation in which a key character can't reveal a key plot point, then resolve it simplistically by making the PC part of the same organization. To me, it would have been fine to have just skipped the nonsense and had Anise overrule Kerida and reveal the secret.

    Yeah my Asura making an oath like this felt real silly.

    The same goes for my Charr. Even my humans would have a problem with the oath though for reasons already stated by Na. I simply can’t imagine them taking it. If I remember right, this was also the reason why many people disliked that part of the story immensely.

<1
©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.