A Conspicuous Trend Among GW2's Cast of Characters *Spoilers*

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

1 hour ago, Narcemus.1348 said:

I was intentionally leaving out past leaders (aka Soo Won) and unverified (Sianna, Muat, and Crysanthea). Also while Jennah was always in charge of the seraph, According to the wiki Logan had been given command of the seraph in her stead because of her political obligations. Also, it is noted on the wiki that Jhavi was in charge of the Vigil in the aftermath of Almorra's death. I will gladly change these things if they are verified or I'm shown to be wrong. I will try to include the Gods and other people of import as well in my edit.

Sianna takes a leadership position of the Free Awakened in Jahai, that's outright confirmed at that time, though it's unclear if she's retained that position because of Elona's altering situation (but the same can be said for the rest of Elona's leadership). She does seem to retain a similar enough position in EoD though.

For Jhavi, she was only in command until Laranthir returned, and he did so in EoD. Page probably not updated yet.

Logan never led the Seraph, he was just a "first among equals" among the Seraph Captains. Jennah was always the defacto leader, she just delegated a lot to Logan and Anise because of Caudecus machinations.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Konig Des Todes.2086

[Kalavier.1097]

8 hours ago, LuckyThirteen.4576 said:

You remark that neither Joon or Li are particularly likeable, which I agree with; but my point was that if this was the case, why does Joon get to be a hero while Li is portrayed exclusively as a villain?

 

4 hours ago, Eekasqueak.7850 said:

With Li and Joon I think it's just a case of Li's goals fundamentally come into conflict with the player's while Joon is only briefly antagonistic because of a disagreement on how to carry out the same goal. Being likable or not doesn't really come into play there. 

IMO (quoting both of you cause relevance) it's more of their goals as well as their jobs. Nothing to do with being likable or their gender.

Joon, if a villain, would perhaps come across being a bit too much like the inquest have, and they've been overused as villains who pop up everywhere. Conversations I had before launch included things like "Are the inquest/Asura going to be in Cantha first and that's why jade tech?" and "Jade brotherhood are just going to be human inquest. bleh."

Li is a bit more of a regular soldier. Honestly from memory, he wasn't too extreme in his stated goals or desires, just keeping the country sealed from outsiders. Course, that meant he had to prove the Commander was the big bad of all these events. Kick the commander and outsiders out, order is restored, etc. Which lead him into conflict with the PC. Joon was also in conflict, but as her husband states, "She hates admitting she is wrong, ever." We had to make her admit that she was wrong and her current plan wouldn't work.

 

The thing I'd ask LuckyThirteen though is this. Would you feel the same if it was reversed? If the tech genuis was a male, and the isolationist Minister of Security was female?

 

37 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

Which is exactly my point.

They could have approached the idea of opposing immigration in a balanced and nuanced way, but instead, they chose to go with the racist genocidal maniac route.

This is precisely what is problematic with this storyline.

So... depicting a group that comes from the Ministry of Purity... as behaving like the Ministry of Purity did... is bad?

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the Ministry of Purity in GW1 went from "For the people, cleansing the plague" to "Silence everybody involved with the jades. Disappear entire families of people who are only slightly involved with the Jade Brotherhood. Openly attack the Kurzicks and Luxons as traitors to Cantha. Assault long standing allies in the Tengu clans who signed the treaties under Togo and the Emperor." They went to seize power, wipe out the Kurzick and Luxon cultures literally as best they could. They drove the Tengu into hiding or being wiped out. They sealed the borders and only allowed traders from Kryta to unload their ships at the docks, never going further.

Ministry of Purity were, pretty much from almost the start, not nice people. All the lore about them is not nice.

You are literally complaining that the purists, those who were, or are descended from Ministry of Purity officials and families, those who buy into or completely believe in those ideals, behave in that manner.

This isn't some random civilians who are unhappy because of X policy. This is more like angry Separatists who don't like the idea of being friendly with the Charr who sieged their city for a century or more. Yes, they can be convinced to change. But a whole lot of them would have stabbed a charr before listening to them.

Same thing here. The Purists do not want open borders. They do not want to be friends with the Tengu. They want Canthan supremacy within the borders. They are willing to attack or kill people. Hell, you can literally find texts from some who want to figure out how to control the Risen just to unleash a horde on Kaineng, to let them rebuild it as they want. Or so Purists can swoop in and save the day again, and regain power.

The difference is, the militant Separatists lost their funding when Caudecus was killed. Their armed, hostile camps got destroyed or the people captured. The civilians who were purely fed propaganda and their worst fears fed slowly started to come around. Some still are unhappy with it. But they aren't the ones able to attack or do damage.

Purists? They are more like base game Separatists. They still have resources, zeal, and a clear goal.

[Danikat.8537]

3 minutes ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

Joon, if a villain, would perhaps come across being a bit too much like the inquest have, and they've been overused as villains who pop up everywhere. Conversations I had before launch included things like "Are the inquest/Asura going to be in Cantha first and that's why jade tech?" and "Jade brotherhood are just going to be human inquest. bleh."

Li is a bit more of a regular soldier. Honestly from memory, he wasn't too extreme in his stated goals or desires, just keeping the country sealed from outsiders. Course, that meant he had to prove the Commander was the big bad of all these events. Kick the commander and outsiders out, order is restored, etc. Which lead him into conflict with the PC. Joon was also in conflict, but as her husband states, "She hates admitting she is wrong, ever." We had to make her admit that she was wrong and her current plan wouldn't work.

I agree with this, and I also think making Joon the villain would have been too predictable.

When we first met Joon and Minister Li arguing in the throne room I honestly expected the outcome to be reversed. I thought Joon was going to be the stereotypical "surprise" villain - the charismatic innovator who makes a great show of wanting to help everyone else and then, surprise, surprise, is actually manipulating events for their own benefit. Finding out she built and ran the facility where Soo-Won was "contained" only confirmed that for me.

Likewise I thought Li was going to be the typical gruff, absolutely by the book police man who the politicians and technocrats don't like because he doesn't consider anyone to be above the law and part of the story would be earning his trust (via Rama) and working together to stop Joon.

I know that sort of storyline is supposed to be a plot twist, but to me it feels like it's become a common one which I now expect, so finding out that in this case the first impressions actually were largely accurate was more surprising. And it didn't prevent the story adding more depth to both. Joon's family was a surprise for me, I thought she'd be the type who had no time for family or basically anything outside her work.

(And yes I'd say the same about both characters if their genders were different. Although I can't remember a 'gruff by the book police man' character who was a woman, but it's probably happened in some crime drama or other. The nearest I can think of is Sergeant Angua in Discworld, and I think a lot of the time she's sticking to the rules as much to keep Captain Carrot happy as because she agrees with them.)

[Kalavier.1097]

4 minutes ago, Danikat.8537 said:

I agree with this, and I also think making Joon the villain would have been too predictable.

When we first met Joon and Minister Li arguing in the throne room I honestly expected the outcome to be reversed. I thought Joon was going to be the stereotypical "surprise" villain - the charismatic innovator who makes a great show of wanting to help everyone else and then, surprise, surprise, is actually manipulating events for their own benefit. Finding out she built and ran the facility where Soo-Won was "contained" only confirmed that for me.

Likewise I thought Li was going to be the typical gruff, absolutely by the book police man who the politicians and technocrats don't like because he doesn't consider anyone to be above the law and part of the story would be earning his trust (via Rama) and working together to stop Joon.

I know that sort of storyline is supposed to be a plot twist, but to me it feels like it's become a common one which I now expect, so finding out that in this case the first impressions actually were largely accurate was more surprising. And it didn't prevent the story adding more depth to both. Joon's family was a surprise for me, I thought she'd be the type who had no time for family or basically anything outside her work.

(And yes I'd say the same about both characters if their genders were different. Although I can't remember a 'gruff by the book police man' character who was a woman, but it's probably happened in some crime drama or other. The nearest I can think of is Sergeant Angua in Discworld, and I think a lot of the time she's sticking to the rules as much to keep Captain Carrot happy as because she agrees with them.)

 

Yeah at first I admit I went with "I think they both will be allies" purely because I didn't want to think that Joon would end up as a big bad, as I hadn't really delved into the guild chats or trailers really on purpose to go in blind. Joon flipping to be a villain and Li flipping to become an ally was in my head, and almost predictable to me.

Having it be the reverse was interesting (I had a nudge it'd happen from seeing an achievement title/blurb), but because he didn't just go "BAH KILL" but was actually just trying to fix things to deport us, not kill (originally at least). He may be a purist, but he was aiming to seal the borders again, not cause a war. As Min said afterwards when he asked her to take care of his dog. "He was... pretty normal. That's what makes his turn so weird."

 

Joon's family I knew about because I saw the secret achievement before going into the instance, but it was a nice touch. Course it's kinda funny if you run into them first, then go into the bedrooms and have the Commander go "Wait, Joon has a kid?" after meeting said kid lol.

[Ashantara.8731]

7 hours ago, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

*cough* *cough* Arwen, Eowyn, and Galadriel.

I was talking about the novel and not Peter Jackson's modernized vision. And even in the latter, all those female characters are still sidekicks or love interests, not leading roles -- Galadriel only got a bit more weight in Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, and Tauriel was also all Peter Jackson's. All the actual "heroes" are male in the original version.

And anyway, you are completely missing the point here: the OP's complaint is nonsense and sexist. There is nothing wrong with having more female characters in prominent roles than males for a change. It shouldn't matter.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Ashantara.8731

[voltaicbore.8012]

2 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

I agree with this, and I also think making Joon the villain would have been too predictable.

When we first met Joon and Minister Li arguing in the throne room I honestly expected the outcome to be reversed. I thought Joon was going to be the stereotypical "surprise" villain - the charismatic innovator who makes a great show of wanting to help everyone else and then, surprise, surprise, is actually manipulating events for their own benefit. Finding out she built and ran the facility where Soo-Won was "contained" only confirmed that for me.

Likewise I thought Li was going to be the typical gruff, absolutely by the book police man who the politicians and technocrats don't like because he doesn't consider anyone to be above the law and part of the story would be earning his trust (via Rama) and working together to stop Joon.

I know that sort of storyline is supposed to be a plot twist, but to me it feels like it's become a common one which I now expect, so finding out that in this case the first impressions actually were largely accurate was more surprising. And it didn't prevent the story adding more depth to both. Joon's family was a surprise for me, I thought she'd be the type who had no time for family or basically anything outside her work.

(And yes I'd say the same about both characters if their genders were different. Although I can't remember a 'gruff by the book police man' character who was a woman, but it's probably happened in some crime drama or other. The nearest I can think of is Sergeant Angua in Discworld, and I think a lot of the time she's sticking to the rules as much to keep Captain Carrot happy as because she agrees with them.)

Eh if you thought that way about Li and Joon from the start, you've just failed to notice ANet's leanings. Perhaps it's because I'm American and there is a very specific sort of aggressive progressivism that is fairly easily identifiable, but the direction both Li and Joon went in were entirely predictable.

I'm not sure how it is in other languages, but the English audio from Kasmeer just after we get bailed out was a big tell. The story makes a big deal out of Kasmeer being a diplomatic presence in Cantha, as well as her taking that job seriously and being fairly good at it. Yes, she's a bit new and nervous at the start, but she's never shown to be incompetent. Yet, for all this, she refers to Minister Li simply as "that MAN", her voice dripping with fairly obvious contempt. Mind you, we don't even know who he is, we woke up minutes ago.

This is, at best, a diplomatic slight to refer to such a highly positioned foreign dignitary (while standing in an open space under the jurisdiction of said dignitary, speaking to a recently released inmate whose freedom requires the grudging cooperation of said dignitary) that way. It's just stupid. At minimum, she should actually tell us who Li is (she doesn't even tell us his name) and if she doesn't like him, warn us about him being a crusty old racist. But nah - we don't need to know he's the Minister of Security, what his name is, or that we might need to handle him with care - all we need to know is that he's some MAN who wants to talk to us.

So it was fairly obvious Li was going the "bad man" route from the get-go, and I harbored no illusions that ANet would do anything interesting with him.

As for Joon, my initial impression of her was extremely favorable. She stood up to Li, wasn't cowed in the presence of the Empress, turned out to the Empress' sister, and actually helped us behind the scenes. It was nice to hear Taimi get a non-asura friend to nerd out with for once. Then it turns out that Joon was the one that transacted with the Aetherblades, which threw a different color over everything that happened. Her short sightedness is what got Gorrik kidnapped, the Commander nearly killed, and Aurene exposed to a form of danger we've never experienced before. But rather than being more predictable and trying to either hide her misdeeds or deceive the rest of us, she just comes right out and says it. She didn't even make any sort of excuse for it. Unironically awesome!.

That was interesting and extremely promising to me, because I felt like ANet had the opportunity to have a truly compelling antagonist in Joon. The theme of hubris isn't one that's particularly well explored by gaming in general or GW2 in particular. Here we have a chance to really get into it - Joon's primary motivations are fine, but her overwhelming belief in her own correctness blinds her, leading to key mistakes. The great thing about hubris as a narrative device is that it's less toxic than outright insanity or super distasteful racism. It still wouldn't feel too bad to have her back on Team Good Guy after we knock some sense into her. She would eventually have to account for the immense damage her hubris caused, as well as the unjustifiable risks she exposed people to. Not just people, but literally all mortal life on Tyria almost got fed to the Void because she was too smug to perceive her own naivete about outsiders.

But we get none of that. Instead, we find her kid's room, and Taimi has a preachy little finger wag at us for being surprised. Then she refuses to accept new data that conflicts with her views (hilariously consistent with American wokness, by the way), and tries to murder us just as sincerely as Li. After all that, she.... gets to (badly) throw a wrench past Taimi's head, pout some, then we just get her back on Team Good Guy. There's no real accounting for her massive and unjustifiable failures, and it doesn't appear that there will ever be.

Normally I'd say the way Joon's character turned out was due to ANet just being rushed, and I'm sure that played a big part in it. But there are too many other "hay guiz we're like SO progressive" signals in EoD that I'm convinced they don't want to explore Joon's failings in depth because that goes against the idea of uplifting brave female leads.

[Diovid.9506]

1 hour ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

Eh if you thought that way about Li and Joon from the start, you've just failed to notice ANet's leanings. Perhaps it's because I'm American and there is a very specific sort of aggressive progressivism that is fairly easily identifiable, but the direction both Li and Joon went in were entirely predictable.

I'm not sure how it is in other languages, but the English audio from Kasmeer just after we get bailed out was a big tell. The story makes a big deal out of Kasmeer being a diplomatic presence in Cantha, as well as her taking that job seriously and being fairly good at it. Yes, she's a bit new and nervous at the start, but she's never shown to be incompetent. Yet, for all this, she refers to Minister Li simply as "that MAN", her voice dripping with fairly obvious contempt. Mind you, we don't even know who he is, we woke up minutes ago.

This is, at best, a diplomatic slight to refer to such a highly positioned foreign dignitary (while standing in an open space under the jurisdiction of said dignitary, speaking to a recently released inmate whose freedom requires the grudging cooperation of said dignitary) that way. It's just stupid. At minimum, she should actually tell us who Li is (she doesn't even tell us his name) and if she doesn't like him, warn us about him being a crusty old racist. But nah - we don't need to know he's the Minister of Security, what his name is, or that we might need to handle him with care - all we need to know is that he's some MAN who wants to talk to us.

So it was fairly obvious Li was going the "bad man" route from the get-go, and I harbored no illusions that ANet would do anything interesting with him.

As for Joon, my initial impression of her was extremely favorable. She stood up to Li, wasn't cowed in the presence of the Empress, turned out to the Empress' sister, and actually helped us behind the scenes. It was nice to hear Taimi get a non-asura friend to nerd out with for once. Then it turns out that Joon was the one that transacted with the Aetherblades, which threw a different color over everything that happened. Her short sightedness is what got Gorrik kidnapped, the Commander nearly killed, and Aurene exposed to a form of danger we've never experienced before. But rather than being more predictable and trying to either hide her misdeeds or deceive the rest of us, she just comes right out and says it. She didn't even make any sort of excuse for it. Unironically awesome!.

That was interesting and extremely promising to me, because I felt like ANet had the opportunity to have a truly compelling antagonist in Joon. The theme of hubris isn't one that's particularly well explored by gaming in general or GW2 in particular. Here we have a chance to really get into it - Joon's primary motivations are fine, but her overwhelming belief in her own correctness blinds her, leading to key mistakes. The great thing about hubris as a narrative device is that it's less toxic than outright insanity or super distasteful racism. It still wouldn't feel too bad to have her back on Team Good Guy after we knock some sense into her. She would eventually have to account for the immense damage her hubris caused, as well as the unjustifiable risks she exposed people to. Not just people, but literally all mortal life on Tyria almost got fed to the Void because she was too smug to perceive her own naivete about outsiders.

But we get none of that. Instead, we find her kid's room, and Taimi has a preachy little finger wag at us for being surprised. Then she refuses to accept new data that conflicts with her views (hilariously consistent with American wokness, by the way), and tries to murder us just as sincerely as Li. After all that, she.... gets to (badly) throw a wrench past Taimi's head, pout some, then we just get her back on Team Good Guy. There's no real accounting for her massive and unjustifiable failures, and it doesn't appear that there will ever be.

Normally I'd say the way Joon's character turned out was due to ANet just being rushed, and I'm sure that played a big part in it. But there are too many other "hay guiz we're like SO progressive" signals in EoD that I'm convinced they don't want to explore Joon's failings in depth because that goes against the idea of uplifting brave female leads.

I always hear Americans say they encounter a lot of aggressive wokeness but online I mostly encounter aggressive anti-wokeness. /shrug

[Zola.6197]

6 hours ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

Which is exactly my point.

They could have approached the idea of opposing immigration in a balanced and nuanced way, but instead, they chose to go with the racist genocidal maniac route.

This is precisely what is problematic with this storyline.

The Purists being genocidal racists is set up from GW1 by the devs of that era. There’s no “balanced approach” for that.

[Aodlop.1907]

1 hour ago, Diovid.9506 said:

I always hear Americans say they encounter a lot of aggressive wokeness but online I mostly encounter aggressive anti-wokeness. /shrug

Both exist, but to claim you've never seen the former, clearly you've never visited Reddit.

[Kalavier.1097]

2 hours ago, Diovid.9506 said:

I always hear Americans say they encounter a lot of aggressive wokeness but online I mostly encounter aggressive anti-wokeness. /shrug

Was bad some years back, but now it's mostly well, as you said. I encounter more people IRL and online on the "anti-woke" side then the "woke" side.

But some people search for conspiracy and agendas when there is none. Honestly, I don't recall this line that keeps being said of Kasmeer going "THAT MAN" in dripping contempt. Oh, just rewatched. Such.. contempt. That isn't there lol.

That's not contempt, that's a bit harsher but guess what, I doubt Li gave Kasmeer a glowing welcome either. At first he's professional, but as things start to go wrong he gets more and more fed up with us. From "I'll deal with this." to "See, everything's gone to hell since THEY arrived." Given how Kasmeer and Li's introduction was "Yo a bunch of airships just crashed into Shing Jea." he probably dealt with her at first a bit harsher himself, being how Aetherblades are causing trouble.

Still, Kasmeer's saying of "that Man." wasn't so hostile or aggressive to me as people say. A bit harsher then perhaps normal, but nowhere near "THAT EVIL kitten OF A MAN. UGH."

2 hours ago, Zola.6197 said:

The Purists being genocidal racists is set up from GW1 by the devs of that era. There’s no “balanced approach” for that.

 

Pretty much. It's funny, how the most stable Purist we see is actually Li. But I suppose he also lives a life of luxury compared to the rest. Likewise, he's diplomatic at first but steadily grows annoyed because the situation in Cantha goes from "okay" to "Worse", and to him it's all the outsiders. When the border was closed, things were normal. Now things are all kinds of messed up.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

On 4/25/2022 at 5:07 AM, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

Yeah I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is, as I don't even think that are more important/influential females than males in GW2, and if there are is by a slight margin.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has answered this yet:  It's bad storytelling.  To go back to Aristotle's definition, a story is a representation of reality and the truth within.  Even with fantastical premises and suppositions, it is a necessary in these stories that the people still adhere to fundamental human nature, and all other laws of physics aside from the fantastical given adhere to the real world.  If the characters act unnaturally, it is immersion breaking, which leads to frustrating characters, baffling decisions, and ultimately a bad story.  Even with dragons and magic and the imminent death of the world, people must still act like real people.

This is one of the issues that the OP was hinting at.  In the real world, for a multitude of reasons (goal-orientation, work-life balance, assertiveness), we do not have that many women world leaders.  Most of the world recognizes this fact, both consciously and sub-consciously.  So, if we're reading a story, and for no explicable reason the vast majority of leadership roles are held by women, anyone who's observed both of these will encounter cognitive dissonance.  The more astute will realize that this isn't just happenstance, and then all it takes is one look at the personal politics of the people working at Anet to know what is going on.

I noticed it myself.  The stories themselves haven't gone into full-blown misandry territory, because they still have both virtuous + competent men that are not honorary women (Rama, Gorrick), and villainous women who are not evil solely by a man's influence (Ankka).  However, the proportion of women to men in the new expansion is massive, far more than what is realistic or even relative to what the last two expansions had.  

[DaFishBob.6518]

6 hours ago, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

I agree. I think if we want to move from a place of inequality where men are privileged, we will have to have a period where this privilege will be given to women to counterbalance (which will never reach the ridiculous disproportion that right now exists between men and women, btw), before reaching a 50/50 situation. 

OP, if you're a man and you feel like GW2 is being unfair to men, (1) don't because it's not, and (2) relax because even if it is, the rest of the world is still in your favor.  

 

No one has a right to dominate over the other and this is no mere law written by humanity. We all eat the dead after all and will never truly understand each other's struggles. Take a step back and drop that desire for retribution that will not be paid off in a video game lore sub forum.

[The Greyhawk.9107]

3 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

I'm a bit surprised nobody has answered this yet:  It's bad storytelling.  To go back to Aristotle's definition, a story is a representation of reality and the truth within.  Even with fantastical premises and suppositions, it is a necessary in these stories that the people still adhere to fundamental human nature, and all other laws of physics aside from the fantastical given adhere to the real world.  If the characters act unnaturally, it is immersion breaking, which leads to frustrating characters, baffling decisions, and ultimately a bad story.  Even with dragons and magic and the imminent death of the world, people must still act like real people.

This is one of the issues that the OP was hinting at.  In the real world, for a multitude of reasons (goal-orientation, work-life balance, assertiveness), we do not have that many women world leaders.  Most of the world recognizes this fact, both consciously and sub-consciously.  So, if we're reading a story, and for no explicable reason the vast majority of leadership roles are held by women, anyone who's observed both of these will encounter cognitive dissonance.  The more astute will realize that this isn't just happenstance, and then all it takes is one look at the personal politics of the people working at Anet to know what is going on.

I noticed it myself.  The stories themselves haven't gone into full-blown misandry territory, because they still have both virtuous + competent men that are not honorary women (Rama, Gorrick), and villainous women who are not evil solely by a man's influence (Ankka).  However, the proportion of women to men in the new expansion is massive, far more than what is realistic or even relative to what the last two expansions had.  

 

3 hours ago, DaFishBob.6518 said:

No one has a right to dominate over the other and this is no mere law written by humanity. We all eat the dead after all and will never truly understand each other's struggles. Take a step back and drop that desire for retribution that will not be paid off in a video game lore sub forum.

https://youtu.be/51iohb6sOS8

Edited April 27, 2022 by The Greyhawk.9107

[Kalavier.1097]

59 minutes ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

  If the characters act unnaturally, it is immersion breaking, which leads to frustrating characters, baffling decisions, and ultimately a bad story.  Even with dragons and magic and the imminent death of the world, people must still act like real people.

This is one of the issues that the OP was hinting at.  In the real world, for a multitude of reasons (goal-orientation, work-life balance, assertiveness), we do not have that many women world leaders.  Most of the world recognizes this fact, both consciously and sub-consciously.  So, if we're reading a story, and for no explicable reason the vast majority of leadership roles are held by women, anyone who's observed both of these will encounter cognitive dissonance.  The more astute will realize that this isn't just happenstance, and then all it takes is one look at the personal politics of the people working at Anet to know what is going on.

 

 

Or... maybe, just maybe. Because it's a fantasy world, that has zero basis from Earth, doesn't share any history or connection to Earth.

The politics of RL mean nothing. In GW there hasn't been rampant racism or Sexism as we've seen IRL. People look at a female officer and go "Have a nice day." Like Star Trek. A woman captain? That's literally not an issue because at that time, nobody cares.

How can a human in Cantha behave unnaturally, unless we apply RL nation/culture standards to it? Are you going to walk around and say "Well, this doesn't make sense because in Korea X doesn't do that."? You can, but it's a nonsensical argument.

Your argument is "In the real world" but that's exactly the thing. This isn't the real world. This isn't Earth with the problems of the past and the hatreds of today. In the real world we don't have super intelligent gremlins and massive talking cat engineers.

Most of the world can read a book about fantasy or scifi and understand that this is not Earth, and therefore Earth's biases or history don't apply.

In Star Wars, nobody cares if you are a woman or man in the Empire. They care about you doing your job. In World of Warcraft, nobody cares if you are a lady orc or a male orc. Are you strong and loyal to the horde? GREAT. In warhammer 40k. It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman. you do your task for the Emperor.

How are characters in Guild wars acting unnaturally? Is Logan suddenly professing a love for Canach romantically? Is Rama dancing in the rain naked? That would be unnatural to their characters. "Jennah is queen" is hardly unnatural. "Kiel is a captain" is not unnatural.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Kalavier.1097

[Labjax.2465]

8 hours ago, Diovid.9506 said:

I always hear Americans say they encounter a lot of aggressive wokeness but online I mostly encounter aggressive anti-wokeness. /shrug

What people call ridiculous stuff like "aggressive wokeness" (telling how vague of a term it is) is usually people being ideologically stern about some issues that the "anti-woke" people don't agree are important issues. Like it's this whole thing of looking down on anyone who cares about anything (fine print: "anyone who cares about anything I don't personally care about"). Lot of double standard type stuff going on in that mindset.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

2 hours ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

Or... maybe, just maybe. Because it's a fantasy world, that has zero basis from Earth, doesn't share any history or connection to Earth.

Nope.  No matter how fantastical the setting or the premises of a story is, the story needs to have a connection the human element.  Even if the story is as crazy as talking fish secretly having human intelligence living in our oceans (such as Finding Nemo), it still needs the human element (a father over-protective of his only son because he lost his wife).  

 

2 hours ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

The politics of RL mean nothing. In GW there hasn't been rampant racism or Sexism as we've seen IRL. People look at a female officer and go "Have a nice day." Like Star Trek. A woman captain? That's literally not an issue because at that time, nobody cares.

How can a human in Cantha behave unnaturally, unless we apply RL nation/culture standards to it? Are you going to walk around and say "Well, this doesn't make sense because in Korea X doesn't do that."? You can, but it's a nonsensical argument.

Your argument is "In the real world" but that's exactly the thing. This isn't the real world. This isn't Earth with the problems of the past and the hatreds of today. In the real world we don't have super intelligent gremlins and massive talking cat engineers.

Most of the world can read a book about fantasy or scifi and understand that this is not Earth, and therefore Earth's biases or history don't apply.

In Star Wars, nobody cares if you are a woman or man in the Empire. They care about you doing your job. In World of Warcraft, nobody cares if you are a lady orc or a male orc. Are you strong and loyal to the horde? GREAT. In warhammer 40k. It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman. you do your task for the Emperor.

How are characters in Guild wars acting unnaturally? Is Logan suddenly professing a love for Canach romantically? Is Rama dancing in the rain naked? That would be unnatural to their characters. "Jennah is queen" is hardly unnatural. "Kiel is a captain" is not unnatural.

 

This is tantamount to just admitting that it is a bad story.  This is figuratively dancing around the point and hoping I don't recognize the snuck presuppositions.  I bolded them.  The things you are claiming are ideological in nature; asserting there is a grand conspiracy to keep women out of things by men for silly reasons,.  Asserting that there is no human nature; all things are cultural and thus cannot be understood by people elsewhere.  Just be straight with me here and admit it.  You want stories to have stacked female leadership because you want to inspire change in the real world for it's perceived flaws.

I'm not going to chase around 6 paragraphs of misdirection.  Until I get this admission, the discussion quite literally cannot progress further.  

[voltaicbore.8012]

9 hours ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

This isn't Earth with the problems of the past and the hatreds of today.

Oh, so that must be why Tyria is littered with the markers of the wokeness of today? /s

More seriously, I just want there to be more stuff like Kas & Jory. They're just themselves, and the game doesn't preach at us about them. Their treatment, I believe, hews closest to this ideal of Tyria not being saddled with Earth's baggage.

[Kalavier.1097]

3 hours ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

Oh, so that must be why Tyria is littered with the markers of the wokeness of today? /s

More seriously, I just want there to be more stuff like Kas & Jory. They're just themselves, and the game doesn't preach at us about them. Their treatment, I believe, hews closest to this ideal of Tyria not being saddled with Earth's baggage.

Given how Woke seems to be anything from "A man listens to a woman = he's weak and pathetic" (Sheesh, I guess don't listen to your mother!) to "Angry person bashing in a person's face with how men suck and women are the best at everything." It's really hard to tell with people anymore. Kinda the reason why I look at somebody complaining about "Wokeness" and go in my head "And that means....?"

 

9 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

Nope.  No matter how fantastical the setting or the premises of a story is, the story needs to have a connection the human element.  Even if the story is as crazy as talking fish secretly having human intelligence living in our oceans (such as Finding Nemo), it still needs the human element (a father over-protective of his only son because he lost his wife). 

A human element =/= human history. The thing you mention has nothing to do with historical leaders or their gender lol. edit: As example, the Nemo case can easily be an over protective mother of her son/daughter because her husband died, and it carries the same weight.

9 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

This is tantamount to just admitting that it is a bad story.  This is figuratively dancing around the point and hoping I don't recognize the snuck presuppositions.  I bolded them.  The things you are claiming are ideological in nature; asserting there is a grand conspiracy to keep women out of things by men for silly reasons,.  Asserting that there is no human nature; all things are cultural and thus cannot be understood by people elsewhere.  Just be straight with me here and admit it.  You want stories to have stacked female leadership because you want to inspire change in the real world for it's perceived flaws.

I'm not going to chase around 6 paragraphs of misdirection.  Until I get this admission, the discussion quite literally cannot progress further.  

Bad writing = a number of woman in charge for you. This is like how the other topic died because the one side literally drew the line as "A man listens to a woman? HE'S PATHETIC AND WEAK!"

There is no political bias on my part, I don't care who the leaders are, female, male, agender, alien, whatever. Just make sure they are well written. I don't expect GW2 to change the world or inspire a cultural shift any more then a random book would. The only conspiracy I see is this one to place the boogyman of "WOKE" on anything you disagree with.

A human element or a human connection is not, human history.  I wonder, what does "a good reason" for several females to hold leadership count for you? An explicit breakdown of how she gained power? Or is there no reason good enough and thus any grouping of several female leaders holding a decent amount of powers cause "Cognitive dissonance"? On that matter since you mention RL history, does that mean female soldiers on the front lines fighting just as capably as men do that to you? Because that's not how RL history went down.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Kalavier.1097

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

16 hours ago, DaFishBob.6518 said:

 

No one has a right to dominate over the other and this is no mere law written by humanity. We all eat the dead after all and will never truly understand each other's struggles. Take a step back and drop that desire for retribution that will not be paid off in a video game lore sub forum.

What? 🤔 

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

16 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

I'm a bit surprised nobody has answered this yet:  It's bad storytelling.  To go back to Aristotle's definition, a story is a representation of reality and the truth within.  Even with fantastical premises and suppositions, it is a necessary in these stories that the people still adhere to fundamental human nature, and all other laws of physics aside from the fantastical given adhere to the real world.  If the characters act unnaturally, it is immersion breaking, which leads to frustrating characters, baffling decisions, and ultimately a bad story.  Even with dragons and magic and the imminent death of the world, people must still act like real people.

This is one of the issues that the OP was hinting at.  In the real world, for a multitude of reasons (goal-orientation, work-life balance, assertiveness), we do not have that many women world leaders.  Most of the world recognizes this fact, both consciously and sub-consciously.  So, if we're reading a story, and for no explicable reason the vast majority of leadership roles are held by women, anyone who's observed both of these will encounter cognitive dissonance.  The more astute will realize that this isn't just happenstance, and then all it takes is one look at the personal politics of the people working at Anet to know what is going on.

I noticed it myself.  The stories themselves haven't gone into full-blown misandry territory, because they still have both virtuous + competent men that are not honorary women (Rama, Gorrick), and villainous women who are not evil solely by a man's influence (Ankka).  However, the proportion of women to men in the new expansion is massive, far more than what is realistic or even relative to what the last two expansions had.  

Not sure I got your point, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

So a good storytelling is one that somehow stays true to our reality? So if we have more females than males in positions of power, that's bad storytelling? Or if we have talking animals or flying buildings? 

Forgot to add something: you mention "vast majority of leadership roles are held by women", again, this isn't the case in GW2. Even if it was, don't see how that would be bad storytelling. From that perspective, stories that only portray black people aren't good stories because they don't represent reality, and I personally don't see it that way. 

Again, correct me if I'm wrong - and I wanna be wrong in this case.

Edited April 27, 2022 by TheLadyOfTheRings.9148

[Astralporing.1957]

On 4/26/2022 at 7:40 AM, LuckyThirteen.4576 said:

You remark that neither Joon or Li are particularly likeable, which I agree with; but my point was that if this was the case, why does Joon get to be a hero while Li is portrayed exclusively as a villain?

It's because ultimately Joon gives up and ends up helping the "right side", while Li does not. And because GW2 world is completely black and white, with no shades of gray or colors. You are either on the "right" (meaning: ours) side, which makes you good, or you are on the opposite side, in which case you're an unreedemable villain. Unless you switch sides at some point in which cases all past sins are immediately forgiven (and often forgotten).

Edit: t's actually a little bit more complicated than that, as there are individual cases of "bad" people on the "good" side, but the presenting is generally heavily one-sided depending on how we're supposed to see the person at the moment. Case in point: Smodur, whose personality did a 180 degrees change the moment story decided to present him in a bad light.

You just don't really get morally complex personalities here, unless it happens accidentally.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Astralporing.1957

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

4 hours ago, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

Not sure I got your point, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

So a good storytelling is one that somehow stays true to our reality? So if we have more females than males in positions of power, that's bad storytelling? Or if we have talking animals or flying buildings? 

Forgot to add something: you mention "vast majority of leadership roles are held by women", again, this isn't the case in GW2. Even if it was, don't see how that would be bad storytelling. From that perspective, stories that only portray black people aren't good stories because they don't represent reality, and I personally don't see it that way. 

Again, correct me if I'm wrong - and I wanna be wrong in this case.

Well, you're half-right.  Good storytelling is true to reality.  If people act unnaturally, or it doesn't obey physical laws, or if the story is internally inconsistent, then it is a bad story.  I.E. if a building is supposed to be on the south side of a city, and suddenly it is on the north side (A la "flying building"), then that is a flaw in a story.

The part that you're mixing up here are scale and premises.  When it comes to scale there is nothing inherently wrong with portraying only black people... if it is a family, community, subsection of a city, or a particular nation.  You know, places where you'll find ethnic homogeneity, even for minorities.  I.E. there were no white Wakandans in Black Panther, and there is nothing unnatural about it.  It becomes a flaw in the story when you only depict black people in places where there should be other races as well.  I.E. if you depict British Parliament with only black people and no explanation, you'll cause mental dissonance.

This is where premises come in.  Every fiction story has a starting idea or notion.  A thought to explore, a metaphor, a parable, etc.  Effectively they're complicated "what if?" scenarios. These ideas can be represented metaphorically in a lot of ways.  This includes ways that do not adhere literally to the laws of our world, but nonetheless make for good narrative devices.  For example, the One Ring in Lord of the Rings is a metaphor for both power and evil, with how the temptation to use immense power can corrupt and cause people to turn to evil.  Metaphorically this is very true, even though there is no actual ring that grants immense power.  This idea of power corrupting can be depicted in many ways, some very realistic (Dictators and Kings/Queens), some technological (nuclear weapons and doomsday devices), some fantastical (Dragons in Game of Thrones, the One Ring).  In contrast, the story would be bad if we had the opposite happen.  If someone evil gains immense power but becomes good because of it, the underlying message of "power purifies" will cause mental dissonance because everybody knows that isn't what happens.

There's a lot of flexibility, but good storytelling must always be anchored to the real.  If you have magic and wizards, but they don't represent anything, that is bad storytelling.  If people randomly start dancing when they drop a hammer on their foot, then it also bad storytelling.  If the messages are contradicted within the same story, then it is bad storytelling.  So on and so fourth.  This is not subjective.  It is objective.  We're all people, we all live in reality.  Someone can like a bad story, but that doesn't make it a good story.  

[Blumpf.2518]

Problem with Characters in GW2 is, they are kinda one-dimensional.

One is good or evil, because the story needs the good or evil character.

There is no real Development.

 

And thats because GW2 first develops the story and then looks what characters could fulfill a certain role in the story.

Thats why almost all the bad guys that GW2 had so far, where kinda lame. They were there cause the story needed a bad guy. And to make it more "epic" the really bad guys were dragons or gods which lead to serious problems to make the fights against them a good believable bossfight. And after the story was over, the evil ones are disposed.

 

BUT there is an example. Scarlet. All she did was because of her character background and not because the Story needed another bad guy. Here the Developers looked "What would this character do?" And then wrote a story around it. Thats why Scarlet is by far the best Character GW2 ever had.

If aNet would be clever they wouldve made more Characters like her. Characters with a story and a background that lead to certain decisions and those decisions then form the Guildwars 2 Story.

 

I still hope, that we didnt kill the real Scarlet, but only her more or less evil clone, who she created as a failsafe "backup", should she get killed, but then the clone put the real scarlet in a stasis pod and did the scarlet thing.

(GW2 Storywriters: Feel free to steal that plottwist and bring Scarlet back).

 

GW2 should go and look:

- Who is that character?

- Whats his background?

- Why did he act so and so in the past?

- What does he want?

- How will this character react in the future to developments, considering the first 4 points?

 

Make this with all important NPCs and you get a really interesting Story.

 

Lets take Logan for example. Since the games start he was the good Paladin guy who is in love with the queen, but she doesnt want him. Hasnt changed a bit since then. But now that some time has passed, he could become bitter, disappointed, or could even think that he, who fought so long for the realm, deserves a reward. Maybe a crown and a queen at his side ? All he did was for Kryta, it would be only logical if he became King after all he did to protect Kryta.

 

There could be really interesting storylines for all the NPCs which put them in conflict with other NPCs and so the GW2 story would grow and grow on its own.

[Zola.6197]

1 hour ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

Well, you're half-right.  Good storytelling is true to reality.  If people act unnaturally, or it doesn't obey physical laws, or if the story is internally inconsistent, then it is a bad story.  I.E. if a building is supposed to be on the south side of a city, and suddenly it is on the north side (A la "flying building"), then that is a flaw in a story.

The part that you're mixing up here are scale and premises.  When it comes to scale there is nothing inherently wrong with portraying only black people... if it is a family, community, subsection of a city, or a particular nation.  You know, places where you'll find ethnic homogeneity, even for minorities.  I.E. there were no white Wakandans in Black Panther, and there is nothing unnatural about it.  It becomes a flaw in the story when you only depict black people in places where there should be other races as well.  I.E. if you depict British Parliament with only black people and no explanation, you'll cause mental dissonance.

This is where premises come in.  Every fiction story has a starting idea or notion.  A thought to explore, a metaphor, a parable, etc.  Effectively they're complicated "what if?" scenarios. These ideas can be represented metaphorically in a lot of ways.  This includes ways that do not adhere literally to the laws of our world, but nonetheless make for good narrative devices.  For example, the One Ring in Lord of the Rings is a metaphor for both power and evil, with how the temptation to use immense power can corrupt and cause people to turn to evil.  Metaphorically this is very true, even though there is no actual ring that grants immense power.  This idea of power corrupting can be depicted in many ways, some very realistic (Dictators and Kings/Queens), some technological (nuclear weapons and doomsday devices), some fantastical (Dragons in Game of Thrones, the One Ring).  In contrast, the story would be bad if we had the opposite happen.  If someone evil gains immense power but becomes good because of it, the underlying message of "power purifies" will cause mental dissonance because everybody knows that isn't what happens.

There's a lot of flexibility, but good storytelling must always be anchored to the real.  If you have magic and wizards, but they don't represent anything, that is bad storytelling.  If people randomly start dancing when they drop a hammer on their foot, then it also bad storytelling.  If the messages are contradicted within the same story, then it is bad storytelling.  So on and so fourth.  This is not subjective.  It is objective.  We're all people, we all live in reality.  Someone can like a bad story, but that doesn't make it a good story.  

You're putting a lot of effort into trying to sound intellectual when your entire message is pretty simple: women aren't leaders in real life, and so they shouldn't be leaders in stories. It is in fact true that women can be (and are) leaders in real life, and if there are fewer women in power in the real world, it is because of well documented efforts to oppress the rights and mobility of women throughout history that people have been fighting against for the past century in particular. You also inherently misunderstand what fantasy, or storytelling, primarily is. It is anything you want it to be.

 

You can pick and choose which elements reflect real life. You can keep the realities from our world that serve the purposes of your story, and ditch the ones you don't want to incorporate. You can have a world where only women are in power, and you can still create a story that is meant as an allegory for the dangers of climate change. Every person in the story could be black. Maybe they're in space. Or whatever else you want to write about. There is no limit.

 

You're running circles around yourself to mask the fact that you just don't like seeing women in positions of power. A lot of people in this thread are. "It's not realistic," and "it isn't good story telling because Aristotle" are terribly weak and fallacious arguments that expose what you're really saying. The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of realistic aspects that reflect the real world in GW2, and plenty of real world aspects the setting and story drop to achieve its storytelling goals as a fantasy franchise. You're just picking and choosing the aspects you do and don't like, and trying to play them off as some kind of intrinsic method for "good storytelling."

 

[Kalavier.1097]

31 minutes ago, Blumpf.2518 said:

Lets take Logan for example. Since the games start he was the good Paladin guy who is in love with the queen, but she doesnt want him. Hasnt changed a bit since then. But now that some time has passed, he could become bitter, disappointed, or could even think that he, who fought so long for the realm, deserves a reward. Maybe a crown and a queen at his side ? All he did was for Kryta, it would be only logical if he became King after all he did to protect Kryta.

There could be really interesting storylines for all the NPCs which put them in conflict with other NPCs and so the GW2 story would grow and grow on its own.

So he's supposed to be the toxic as hell "I gave you all this stuff, I DESERVE your love and affection?"

Also, this is a prime example alongside the OP's calling him a simp that screams to me people don't PAY ATTENTION AT ALL.

The Game makes it explicitly, beyond explicitly clear that Jennah loves Logan as much as he loves her. She can't do kitten about it because POLITICS. He is a commoner, she is royal bloodline. You in base game have Caudecus and the traitor ministers, but also the general nobility of Kryta who would never accept it. Which is why she never openly showcases her affection or feelings. Because it's not politically acceptable. The common folk love it, but the nobles and noble-born ministers she has to deal with on a daily basis would hate it.

 

10 minutes ago, Zola.6197 said:

You're putting a lot of effort into trying to sound intellectual when your entire message is pretty simple: women aren't leaders in real life, and so they shouldn't be leaders in stories. It is in fact true that women can be (and are) leaders in real life, and if there are fewer women in power in the real world, it is because of well documented efforts to oppress the rights and mobility of women throughout history that people have been fighting against for the past century in particular. You also inherently misunderstand what fantasy, or storytelling, primarily is. It is anything you want it to be.

You can pick and choose which elements reflect real life. You can keep the realities from our world that serve the purposes of your story, and ditch the ones you don't want to incorporate. You can have a world where only women are in power, and you can still create a story that is meant as an allegory for the dangers of climate change. Every person in the story could be black. Maybe they're in space. Or whatever else you want to write about. There is no limit.

You're running circles around yourself to mask the fact that you just don't like seeing women in positions of power. A lot of people in this thread are. "It's not realistic," and "it isn't good story telling because Aristotle" are terribly weak and fallacious arguments that expose what you're really saying. The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of realistic aspects that reflect the real world in GW2, and plenty of real world aspects the setting and story drop to achieve its storytelling goals as a fantasy franchise. You're just picking and choosing the aspects you do and don't like, and trying to play them off as some kind of intrinsic method for "good storytelling."

Why I also brought up "Man, if just seeing a number of female leaders causes you trouble, what about ALL THE FEMALE SOLDIERS."

I didn't feel like going so far as saying "Unlike you, I can understand the difference between fantasy, scifi, and RL."

but when the bar is set so low... "It's bad writing to have females in charge/multiple females in charge." or "If a man is below a woman in terms of authority (in any context) he's pathetic and weak." It's hard to truly get into a conversation or take it very seriously.