Dustfinger.9510

One way it would work is if individual words transitioned from high to low frequencies and vice-versa. Then, those with only partial ability to hear the word would hear bits and portions. This could produce a guttural growling, grunting effect as syllables fade in and out in quick succession when applied to the Charrs already rough voices. Some syllables wouldn't be audible at all. In effect, it becomes a natural crypography.

Good on a-net. It was easy for us to assume that common was from humans but a-net deliberately veered away from that common trope as well.

Well, in GW1, norn could only become the Bear. Dunno if this is strict lore or just a case of model limitation though (same would be so for animal forms of the non-Great Spirits). Regardless of animal forms being lore or mechanics though, before Jormag forced the norn south, Bear was the sole Great Spirit - now all four you listed are Great Spirits due to guiding the norn south. So there is reason in lore that makes Bear and the bear form more special than the others. And could be a much larger lore reason than we have confirmed depending on that question about model limitation or lore. Since the arguement is whether Norn are bears, we are looking at the forms Norn takes. Bear spirit is special in chronology. The form isn't, as far as we know. This arguement only solidifies the idea that the bear form comes from the bear spirit. Just like the other forms come from the other great spirits. Rather than due to Norn being bears.

Well, even ignoring the obvious bear form, norn and kodan have very similar beliefs (which is even noted and used as a lead-in for kodan to tell players about the belief of the Southward Claw being the progenator of norn). The fact both norn and kodan have cultural and religious views of the same exact spirits, when all other races don't, is fairly telling. Similarly, both ogres and jotun have a distinct lack of religious beliefs - both are as atheistic as you can get in the setting without going full on antitheist like the charr do. According to Ree, in The Savage Pride of the Jotun,: "The jotun have lost many of the things that once made them great. Their lore is scattered, and much of it lost; any religion, higher learning, or secrets of invention that they once mastered have been eradicated" So we can't really use religion as a disqualifier here since it may well have been the exact same for the Jotun before they lost it. The obvious bear form should be considered if grouped with the obvious snowleapard, raven and wolf form. Nothing we know of in lore makes the bear form any more special than the others.

In Gw1 Ogres were in fact a creature type rather than an individual race like they are in Gw2..Jotun, Yeti's and Ettins were all classed as Ogres back then as well as defined as lesser giants distantly related to Giganticus Lupicus. It's kinda funny that in Gw2 Ogres are considered not only an ancient race now.. but one of thee most ancient of races still alive on Tyria XD Another fun fact is that the names Jotun and Ettin are essentially the same thing as they originate from the same Norse word for Giant, In old Norse that would be jǫtunn, which the jǫ is pronounced kinda like a Y or Eo which is where Eoten came from in old English which today is now Ettin.So despite being two different races in many fantasy games etc they're actually the same thing :) That's pretty interesting. I was (unpleasantly) surprised when I learned a similar situation to goblins and orcs in Tolkiens universe. But, by that time, distinctions had already been broadly made in other media. I'd be very hesitant to consider kodan and jotun/ogres to be related. There's not really any relation between the groups at all, either physically or culturally. Agreed. I'm hestitant to consider any to be related without confirmation or at least a-net leaning more heavily into the fallible evidence. But, tbf: Jotun have about as much in common with Kodan as Norn do. The same evidence of fallible in universe, one sided oral traditionsupports both theories. That oral tradition is either basically correct or incorrect.

Probably not. While Thrulnn does say they were cousins to norn, we cannot be certain the accuracy of his oral tradition history since there's already a couple points of contention and contradiction with what he says about the jotun's fall. Jotun are confirmed by word-of-god to be cousins to ogres, but that's all we know. They're called "lesser giants", and the norn are even shorter so it's hard to consider norn to be... "lesser, lesser giants" I guess? Hmm. The deniability of the oral traditions is definately plausible. Though, I'd hesitate to consider Norn as lesser than lesser giants just becasue they are shorter than Jotun. Norn may just be the smaller end of the lesser giants with Jotun in the middle and Ogres at the larger end. With the reliance on oral traditions to even make a connection between Kodan > Norn and Norn and Jotunn, it seems A-net left their options open. Norn, Jotun, Ogres, Kodan may all be related or none at all or any mix in between.

This is a really good point. ^ It seems A-net wanted a steam punk race but they also didn't want to follow the pack and make it human lead so it was thrown to the Charr.

Pigs have skin similar to humans but Lucks comparison to skinned bears may have been to point out that a Norns looking like human, may be just a Norn looking like a shaved bear. That is, of course, if they meant "shaved" instead of "skinned".

Excellent post. The only contention I'd have is to suggest that fahraras had less do with empathy and more to do with serving the state. Evidence for this would be the fact that biological parents are cut off. A dedicated system of nannies is nice but if the emotional evelopment of children were the priority for the state and culture, the culture probably would have implemented the biological parents into the system as there is a greater chance that biological parents will provide more intimate emotional bonding experience than several strangers who may just see it as a job. In fact, the clues that charr are just really big ol' lovable babies deep down, may actually be an indication that they don't receive much in emotional development. Considering the heavy military theme that pervades the entire Charr society, it seems more likely that the fahrars are modeled after the Spartans and their boot camps schools. Spartans went to bootcamp early in life at age seven, were separated from their parents, and stayed there for years, in order to become better warriors, to better serve the state and community as a whole, rather than prioritizing the emotional development of the child. While Spartan men stayed in the barracks, even after they graduated military school, A-net seems to have differed by making both male and females continuing to live in their barracks. As the fahrar simply becomes it's own military unit, upon graduatation, as a warband. https://hsp3mspartans.weebly.com/social-institutions.html

Interestingly, insectivore teeth work well for both exoskeletons and plants that need to be ripped off structures as we see in marine iguanas that feed primarily on seaweed and algae. Without the existence or canines for a "kill bite", Asura are eligible, early on, to have fed primariliy on either exoskeleton creatures, deep cave plants, or both in any proportion.

Eeeeh.. Their appearance is human-like. Their proportions are generally non human and their strength is described as more then a human of a scaled up size would have. They're as human as giants are.

Hmmm... Would this make Thruln and his ilk also bears?

Tbf: The EU had powers like the Force supernova that allowed a user to rip the entire core out of any star and throw it at another planet

It helps to realize that even top Asuran tech, is ultimately just magictech. The radio might as well just be a magic gem or cowl you talk into for all intents and purposes.

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. 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

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.

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 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.

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.

Yeah. Those would be the 5 different versions. Every voiced cutscene and future cutscene. Plus whatever other request people would want from whatever they'd want to be called. And coding the option to choose which version to use.

Are Savant, Centurion, Valiant, Hero, Slayer still available? I miss myold titles Would require 5 different versions of each voiced cutscene. They just picked one and ran with it.

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. 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"? 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".)

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

Being capable of communication isn't really humanizing. Nor is having a family - even Cthulhu has a daughter in the Lovecraftian mythos. Haumanizing someone or something means to make them more relatable. Cthulhu having a family doesn't make him more relatable than the blind idiot god Azathoth is after we know that Yog-Sothoth is it's grandson. They are both very unrelatable. I wouldn't say the Elder Dragons have been humanized at all. Being given a personality isn't being humanized, and I don't think they really delved deep enough into the motivations and opinions of Mordremoth or Kralkatorrik to truly humanize them, meanwhile Jormag is being presented as being incapable of understanding things from a mortal perspective with it "trying to save the world" but at the intentional cost of life, which is the opposite of humanizing while providing actual interaction. A relatable personality is automatically humanizing. It's the very definition of humanizing something. Having expressed relatable motivations further humanizes the ED's while having extremely relatable offspring even more-so. Kralk's expressed fear of a utopia without him to experience it is a very human and relatable fear. Expressing his fears to his children s very human. The very act of trying to save the world with "acceptable losses" is a classic trope that Jormag shares with human villains throughout various media. It's not the opposite of it, it's a classic trope example of humanizing a villain. Zhaitan wasn't humanized, but he just... wasn't. The way it was presented was, well, no presentation ultimately. We got the presentation of its minions more than Zhaitan. Agreed. Zaitan was very elemental in his portrayal. He's the reason I would have initially defended A-nest descisions.

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

Bangar is going to kick the non-charr out of the Legions.