Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Why are dragons the main villains of the game?


Sir Arigius.6294

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Dustfinger.9510 said:Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal.I wish they had stayed the forces of nature Arenanet originally depicted them as.

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit:

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Cuz their bastards and bastards need to die!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dustfinger.9510 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my source.

Glint claimed Kralkatorrik feared the vision.

Glint was wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personality != humanizing

Emotion != humanizing

Simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fueki.4753 said:

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

FTFY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

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

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

FTFY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thumbsup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...