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

[DanAlcedo.3281]

2 hours ago, Blumpf.2518 said:

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.

Sir, this is an MMO. 

 

[The Greyhawk.9107]

The amount of strawmaning going on here is frankly pathetic and gross.  Exactly zero people in this thread think that there shouldn't be female leaders in either the real world or this game and the fact that several of you are accusing people of that only shows your own intellectual dishonesty.

[DaFishBob.6518]

10 hours ago, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

What? 🤔 

You wrote:

 

On 4/26/2022 at 1:21 PM, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

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.  

You want to dismiss his viewpoints because you believe his struggles are minimal due to being a man. But not all people struggle in the same way and you can't be sure what his struggles are, if they might even be worse than your own. Speaking of struggles worse than your own, you, just as everyone else living, sustain yourself with the flesh and fibers of other organisms be it plant, animal, fungi, etc. If you want to ignore the differences between the struggles of individual men with this comment, how about we ignore the differences between the struggles of living humans? After all, you are either the direct or indirect cause of the suffering and demise of the organisms you consume or displace. Let's try this:

 

If you're a human and you feel like life is being unfair to humans, (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.

 

This is an absurd notion I present because this is not a reality that you caused out of malice, it's merely the way things are and have been. It is not your fault. We also don't actually know how they struggle, if it's something better or worse than what we go through, all we have is circumstantial evidence gathered in studies colored by human perspective. Anyway you come across as someone trying to push some sort of agenda of vengeance against what you perceived as wrong (gender inequality) and taking this chance to lash out at someone with absolutely no authority on the matter. Desiring retribution by expressing it in a video game lore sub forum.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

On 4/27/2022 at 6:30 PM, 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.

Nope.  It isn't that there shouldn't be women leaders in stories, it is that there shouldn't be a vast majority of women leaders in stories.  If you want to be technical, there's no right number of women leaders.  There's only a wrong number.  You can have zero, since we've seen this throughout history and in many places today.  You can have up to 50% women leadership (give or take), which is a proportional representation to society as a whole.  It's quite unrealistic, since proportional representation is a myth, but it isn't immersion breaking (if done well) because half of the interactions we have in society are with women.  It's only when we breeze past that and go into the 70%-100% range where it's obvious that it is propaganda.  It is this propaganda that I dislike.

The idea that sex imbalance is caused by oppression is a myth.  It's already been proven that sex differences increase the more egalitarian a society becomes.  We already know why women don't take up as many leadership roles: work-life balance.  To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, the question isn't why women aren't at the top, but why men are.  The people at the top of the pyramid are statistical freaks; they work 80-100 hours a week with no days off.  That kind of dedication and competitiveness is necessary in order to obtain and maintain those kinds of positions.  Men are more prone to extremes, both in the high end and in the low end.  It's why our prisons and homeless are filled with men, but so are our CEOs and world leaders.  Women, when given the option, prefer to work less hours because they want more time dedicated to their personal lives.

This is where the propaganda comes in.  A writer will, by default, depict things realistically unless something is done carelessly or with an intentional ideal.  A story where there is majority women leadership is an inversion of human nature.  It ascribes qualities to men and women that are unnatural, and it is done with intention.  This itself is immersion breaking, but the intentions behind it are more sinister.  Every proclaimed virtue has a vicious shadow.  For example, the assertion you made that women should be equal in proportion of world leaders but aren't due to oppression is misandry, for it asserts that men are evil; oppressing women for arbitrary and stupid reasons just because men are like that.  Really, all of your ad-hominem is just confession through projection.  However I digress. 

If a writer wanted to have women representation in leadership with no ulterior motives, they'd cap out at a 50/50 split.  Going much higher than that means the writers deliberately wanted to depict women as dominant leaders while specifically not depicting men as dominant leaders.  This is done to subtly discourage men from aspiring towards leadership while also encouraging women to, and it is done under the belief that the current real life situation is bad, wrong, and/or evil.  It is ultimately a denial of human nature, and an attempt to change society  As a side effect, propaganda characters are written poorly.  Because they're metaphorical representations of demographics, they cannot have any serious flaws ascribed to them.  At best it makes the characters flat, at worst it makes the characters annoying Mary Sue's/Gary Stu's.  

The idea that a fantasy story can be anything you want it to be is why there are so many bad stories.  A story can explore any premises that it wants, but it must be anchored to reality and explored honestly.  Otherwise, it is a bad story.  Now, in theory you could explore a world with dominantly or complete woman leadership, but since that doesn't reflect reality it needs to have an explanation, and it needs to have consequences that make sense from the premises.  Actually it's... not theory.  It's been done many times.  Though consider this: any story elements that demand an explanation because they invert reality is, by default, inferior to stories with elements that don't demand explanation, because it takes more time and energy to explain the way things are.  

I've answered most of the stuff you've said in this big series of paragraphs, but there's one other thing I'm going to have to comment on:

 

Quote

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."

This is the tail wagging the dog.  It isn't that something is bad storytelling because a bunch of people don't like it.  It is that a bunch of people don't like something because it is bad storytelling.  You're making appeals to relativism, which is a tacit admission that you have absolutely no standards for what consists of good writing outside of your own subjective appeal.  Therefore, you cannot actually make any assertions with any authority that any claims about good or bad storytelling are wrong.  All arguments from relativism just run in circles, because they are necessarily internally contradictory.  The truth is that truth exists, reality exists, cause and effect share a necessary relationship, humans exist in reality, humans do not exist outside of reality, and reality has laws.  Therefore, it is wholly possible to use logic and come to an objective standard about what consists of good storytelling.  There are many foundations to good storytelling, and one of them is that good stories are an expression of reality and the truth within.  If the elements of a story are not anchored to reality, then it is bad because it is unrelatable, cognitively dissonant, absent of truth, and demands additional explanations and suspension of disbelief that is not required from stories that are anchored to reality.  This is not subjective.  It objective. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Blood Red Arachnid.2493
proofread

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

14 hours ago, DaFishBob.6518 said:

You wrote:

 

You want to dismiss his viewpoints because you believe his struggles are minimal due to being a man.

Yes they are 😄 There's no under-representation of men in positions of power in GW2. There's no struggle to begin with. 

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

20 hours 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.  

Now I get what you were saying. I don't necessarily agree but I get your point. In this case, again, I really don't see a big difference between powerful men and women in GW2. I think it's pretty much balanced. Yes there might be a few more women, or a few more men, but so what?  

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

1 hour ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

The idea that sex imbalance is caused by oppression is a myth.  It's already been proven that sex differences increase the more egalitarian a society becomes.  We already know why women don't take up as many leadership roles: work-life balance.  To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, the question isn't why women aren't at the top, but why men are.  The people at the top of the pyramid are statistical freaks; they work 80-100 hours a week with no days off.  That kind of dedication and competitiveness is necessary in order to obtain and maintain those kinds of positions.  Men are more prone to extremes, both in the high end and in the low end.  It's why our prisons and homeless are filled with men, but so are our CEOs and world leaders.  Women, when given the option, prefer to work less hours because they want more time dedicated to their personal lives.

 

This isn't true. Oppression does lead to imbalance when it comes to gender. Gender roles are forced into people, or people are forced into gender roles, as soon as they're born, and that dictates much of that they do and their choices, which in many cases aren't real "choices", but sticking to the status quo. But at this point this isn't even about GW2 anymore, so I'm done with this nonsense thread. 

[Kalavier.1097]

23 hours ago, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

The amount of strawmaning going on here is frankly pathetic and gross.  Exactly zero people in this thread think that there shouldn't be female leaders in either the real world or this game and the fact that several of you are accusing people of that only shows your own intellectual dishonesty.

There is, however, him stating that having a bunch of female leaders (in any context) without some explicit, explained reason is "unnatural" Though, unnatural is determined by the story and setting, which has nothing to do with Earth.

unnatural for England is not perhaps unnatural for Kryta.

On 4/26/2022 at 8:11 PM, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

  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.

On 4/27/2022 at 7:33 PM, 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.

The thing I love about this is he has to twist a line that everybody agrees with, by adding completely unneeded parts that just underline the message of his posts. Women in any leadership role are UNNATURAL AND WEIRD.

"Act unnatural" is determined by the writing and story. It has nothing to do with real life. A human in star trek, a human in star wars, a human in 40k, a human in three different places IRL (England, China, America just to be off the top of my head), human in Harry Potter,  and a human in Tyria (Kryta, Ascalon, Cantha) are not going to all have the same "Natural" or "Unnatural" behaviors. As I once said "One places weird is another places normal." Does he find all these various scifi or fantasy settings unnatural and causing cognitive dissonance just by watching/reading?

Physical laws are also determined by the story/setting in question. Magic or tech can twist how things work. Tech in Star Trek or Star Wars function in ways that do not follow RL science. Harry Potter doesn't follow the physical laws as we know them. Do all the settings make cognitive dissonance because of this?

You see, the only factor that matters is Internal consistency. Take for example, Tyrian bats. to quote TVtropes

Quote

The game has flying, cave-dwelling creatures called bats. Sounds normal, until you take a closer look: they're not mammalian bats at all, but actually scaly, earless, flying lizards.

And this is fine. Unless they suddenly threw in something that is like a RL bat, called it a bat, and nobody batted an eye at it or commented on it. Then it's a small plot hole/weirdness. That doesn't make it all bad, but there are levels of it.

7 hours ago, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

Now I get what you were saying. I don't necessarily agree but I get your point. In this case, again, I really don't see a big difference between powerful men and women in GW2. I think it's pretty much balanced. Yes there might be a few more women, or a few more men, but so what?  

He seems to directly want to apply RL history standards to every setting no matter what.

What strikes me as so interesting is he cares so heavily about having lesser amounts of female leaders because *reasons* but doesn't seem to give a crap about the equal numbers of female and male soldiers on the front lines fighting as equals in combat ability or rank.

9 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

Nope.  It isn't that there shouldn't be women leaders in stories, it is that there shouldn't be a vast majority of women leaders in stories.  If you want to be technical, there's no right number of women leaders.  There's only a wrong number.  You can have zero, since we've seen this throughout history and in many places today.  You can have up to 50% women leadership (give or take), which is a proportional representation to society as a whole.  It's quite unrealistic, since proportional representation is a myth, but it isn't immersion breaking (if done well) because half of the interactions we have in society are with women.  It's only when we breeze past that and go into the 70%-100% range where it's obvious that it is propaganda.  It is this propaganda that I dislike.

This only works if you base the story or setting off or real life history or the world. In a world that has no shared history with ours, there is no basis to bring forth the comparison. There is no propaganda here, just chasing conspiracies.

9 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

This is the tail wagging the dog.  It isn't that something is bad storytelling because a bunch of people don't like it.  It is that a bunch of people don't like something because it is bad storytelling.  You're making appeals to relativism, which is a tacit admission that you have absolutely no standards for what consists of good writing outside of your own subjective appeal.  Therefore, you cannot actually make any assertions with any authority that any claims about good are bad storytelling are wrong.

And your only evidence of bad storytelling is... "There are a bunch of female leaders." And yet you claim to hold that is for some reason objective, factual evidence of bad storytelling. Nothing about how the characters are written, nothing about what they do or how people react to them.

To quote TLJ era comment I once made. "Do you like/hate Admiral Holdo because of character traits, how she was written, actions she did or did not do in the story and how she related/interacted with other characters? Or do you like/hate her purely because she is a woman?"

One actually has things you can discuss. The other, not really because you aren't talking about the story, just what she has between her legs.

7 hours ago, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

This isn't true. Oppression does lead to imbalance when it comes to gender. Gender roles are forced into people, or people are forced into gender roles, as soon as they're born, and that dictates much of that they do and their choices, which in many cases aren't real "choices", but sticking to the status quo. But at this point this isn't even about GW2 anymore, so I'm done with this nonsense thread. 

Yeah... Was fun, originally held some sense of a conversation that could be had. But then "A bunch of women leaders are bad storytelling." "Why" "CAUSE."

Much like the other one. "Why is Canach a bad character?" "Cause he served under Anise." "Why is Rytlock a bad character now?" "Cause he actually does his job and listens to his boss. Who is not only his wife, but a woman."

[DaFishBob.6518]

People keep commenting with chips on their shoulders here. That's what I would have liked to see a lot less of here. Lady just happened to catch my attention and gave me reason to test her responses. I don't take kindly to people assuming the suffering of others is perfectly fine just because they think the ones suffering are or were benefiting from the status quo.

 

Anyway, more on topic I'm actually a bit curious about the lesser positions of leadership make up. I feel like the positions below that of the top of the chain create a more interesting picture and leaves room for characters with more interesting roles. Something I liked about GW2 is the presence of so many lesser characters that we come in contact with and learn about or fight alongside, characters that are not the supreme leader of a group yet we have extensive interaction with. Their existence makes the world feel more living. And because there is room for so much more of these characters, we can see a much more statistically significant trend. These are the nods that feel more real, the average person is not going to be bumping into only people of world changing importance, they'll encounter people with all kinds of positions and backgrounds.

 

Something I feel is that earlier story content, the make up of these kind of characters is quite well balanced. I mean that for example, if we wanted to find a "good" male and a "bad" female, or a "good" female and a "bad" male, we don't have to think too long to realize we can find that pairing. Like I think about Minister Arton (male) and Minister Estelle (female), where Minister Arton was undoubtedly "good" to the end with his loyalty to Queen Jennah despite his friendship with Minister Caudecus while Minister Estelle was simply "bad" and went along with Minister Caudecus' schemes. Then I remembered we have Morrigu (female) and Leurent (male) who are present in Twilight Arbor explorable paths. Morrigu was a "good" Warden who was there to help us and Leurent was a "bad" Nightmare Courtier.

 

I feel I could probably keep making these kinds of comparisons in later content, up until End of Dragons. I have not purchased End of Dragons yet however so I don't know if this still holds in that content. Any comments on that from anyone?

[DanAlcedo.3281]

Can we let this topic die? 

It's clear that all of this isn't going anywhere except for Mods handing out slaps on the backhead.

Everyone take a deep breath and let it go. 

Here. Have a hug instead. 🤗❤️

[Narcemus.1348]

Yeah, looking at this topic is enough to make me immediately walk away. Do I have an opinion, of course. Do I want to share it? Definitely not here! Do I even want to read it? Nope. The arguments have killed any interest in discussing this subject.

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

8 hours ago, DaFishBob.6518 said:

 Lady just happened to catch my attention and gave me reason to test her responses. I don't take kindly to people assuming the suffering of others is perfectly fine just because they think the ones suffering are or were benefiting from the status quo.

 

If this is referring to my comment, I never assumed this and don't take kindly to people assuming I assumed it 😄 Sorry, I just had to use your words. 
I do think threads like these are a bit dangerous because they shift the narrative and can get in the way of helping people who actually suffer.

Edited April 29, 2022 by TheLadyOfTheRings.9148

[genjonah.1253]

On 4/28/2022 at 1:58 PM, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

Yes they are 😄

 

On 4/29/2022 at 10:24 AM, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

don't take kindly to people assuming I assumed it 😄

Hypocrisy, thy name is…

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

1 hour ago, genjonah.1253 said:

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is…

Uh, no 🙂 If you're interested, you can read the comments again and I think you'll understand. 

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

Personally, I think Guild Wars 2 generally executes the deconstruction of gender roles fairly smoothly. You never end up questioning it, either; because the attaché of survival of the fittest is baked deeply into every racial culture within the game: ability, norn and charr; magic and talent: humans; intelligence: asura. And the sylvari are hardly bound by the flesh-bound rules. The traditional MMORPG benefits also apply here.

Guild Wars 2 is at its finest at this while the writers do not try and force it. The reason, in my opinion, Kasmeer and Marjory are one of the better (the best?) same-gender couples in-game is because Anet never goes out of their way to make a number out of it - just like what I said about gender roles above. Because if you do go and put things like "beat up the bigot" in the actual gameplay, you end up hurting and potentially breaking the immersion.

Also, regarding OP's point on Rytlock and Crecia (and, to an extent, Canach and Anise): they chose to put themselves in those roles. It is consistently established within the lore and interactions that Rytlock does not enjoy playing the leading role. He's a self-made "man of action". Canach and Anise are from two wildly different settings, so applying the usual hierarchy setting between them does not really work out as simply as that. 
Regarding Rama: his case is the same as Rytlock's - he could choose to rise in ranks (he's had chances over the years, judging by the dialogue), but chooses not to. 

Also, how do we judge "capable" in this context? Are Anise and Jenna more capable of taking on the dragons than we, the player character (potentially male) and all the roster (Braham, Canach, Rytlock etc.) are? Probably not. We can safely say, however, that they most likely are more apt inside the sub-context they're given.

I do agree that purists were, in a way, a missed opportunity. Not a major one, but - despite what people would seem to imply here - they were never displayed as this "morally dark" organization even in GW1. Was their leader morally corrupt and evil then? For sure. But the ideology around which they were founded yields for moral grey area leeway. It's a wholly another matter whether they want to explore such moral ambiguity, though.

I'd say OP's issue - and the one I tend to agree with - is actually with the characterization and writing in general - i.e. forgiving key characters too easily to drive the plot forward. Anet is good at writing "one-shot", short-term character arcs and appearances - but their dedication long-term is lacking to say the least. I also agree they tossed much subtlety out of the window when it comes to matters of political correctness with EoD. It didn't bother me; but, compared to the narrative before, I did take notice of it.
Lot of these issues could potentially be fixed with a slower plot progression and fleshed out characters driving said plot. This couldn't really be done that effectively with the dragons as main antagonists; and whenever there was an alternative antagonist, it got rushed through fairly quickly.

TL;DR: Guild Wars universe has great world-building when it comes to "gender equity" (if you want to call it that), but their character writing and tendency to focus on plot (and "key moments") sometimes ends up hurting the established lore and immersion. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by NorthernRedStar.3054

[NaYSmith.4513]

On 4/29/2022 at 5:24 PM, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

If this is referring to my comment, I never assumed this and don't take kindly to people assuming I assumed it 😄 Sorry, I just had to use your words. 
I do think threads like these are a bit dangerous because they shift the narrative and can get in the way of helping people who actually suffer.

You're a terrible person if you think you can judge a person based on their sex but are too ignorant to apply this to your own argument.

Just thought this needed to be said, though I doubt it will matter considering you think it's okay to dismiss disadvantages but judge equality based on your perverted idea of "powerful and influential figures".... I'm sure the fact that men kill themselves more, die at work more, die in war more, have a shorter life span, face harsher criminal penalties, suffer the most in education, and every other disadvantage faced by normal men and boys day to day is irrelevant, because Twitter makes you think you live in a mean patriarchy of tyranny... Or is it just a by-product of men being so successful and privileged in life that we suffer all these disadvantages then tend to lead to death? 

Do a bit of self-reflection & take a look at how terrible your logic is and perhaps people would be willing to engage more.

 

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

18 hours ago, NaYSmith.4513 said:

You're a terrible person if you think you can judge a person based on their sex but are too ignorant to apply this to your own argument.

Just thought this needed to be said, though I doubt it will matter considering you think it's okay to dismiss disadvantages but judge equality based on your perverted idea of "powerful and influential figures".... I'm sure the fact that men kill themselves more, die at work more, die in war more, have a shorter life span, face harsher criminal penalties, suffer the most in education, and every other disadvantage faced by normal men and boys day to day is irrelevant, because Twitter makes you think you live in a mean patriarchy of tyranny... Or is it just a by-product of men being so successful and privileged in life that we suffer all these disadvantages then tend to lead to death? 

Do a bit of self-reflection & take a look at how terrible your logic is and perhaps people would be willing to engage more.

 

I don't think calling someone "a terrible person" without knowing them is the most polite or correct thing to do - and says more about you than me. Only reason I'm replying to this comment, really, is because if you knew even a tiny bit about me, you wouldn't say that 🙂 

Also, the rest of your comment shows that you didn't read my other comments carefully or didn't get what I mean. Joking apart (because clearly we can't joke without being called a terrible person), I'll say it again for the 20th time: I don't think there's injustice towards men in GW2 when it comes to figures of power. Why? Because we have pretty much 50% 50% of both female and male powerful figures in GW2 - which is the thread started by OP. 

[Spirit Ritulist.9315]

I'd like to pour a pint out for all the brave souls who were smacked by anet after posting in this thread when I heard this thread was still up had to come and see the shitshow I had 0 expectations to find intelligent life in this thread and was ready to enjoy the shitshow but was pleasantly surprised by some of the thoughtful discussion actually took place.

 

Thanks for the entertainment all, I'll sell you in the void when anet inevitably decides to yeet this thread like the last dozen. 

[voltaicbore.8012]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:58 AM, Spirit Ritulist.9315 said:

I'd like to pour a pint out for all the brave souls who were smacked by anet after posting in this thread when I heard this thread was still up had to come and see the shitshow I had 0 expectations to find intelligent life in this thread and was ready to enjoy the shitshow but was pleasantly surprised by some of the thoughtful discussion actually took place.

 

Thanks for the entertainment all, I'll sell you in the void when anet inevitably decides to yeet this thread like the last dozen. 

Seems we're still here. Honestly it hasn't gotten nearly as ugly as it could have, and we even had a fairly in-depth attempt to describe some objective standards for storytelling.

I think what people miss about @Blood Red Arachnid.2493's point is that yes, a story can contain absolutely anything you want it to, regardless of our IRL reality. However, the farther you stray from that reality without offering a decent explanation for it, the less believable and coherent your story becomes.

The real issue is whether or not one accepts the IRL disparities between the genders in leadership roles is a result of (1) natural/unforced differences between the group called "male" and the other group called "female," or (2) very unnatural oppression that skews the representation of females in leadership roles much lower than what it would be naturally. There is a reasonable statistical basis for believing (1), which means that you'd agree with @Blood Red Arachnid.2493's insistence that the Tyrian leaders' gender breakdown is unnatural and requires some in-universe explanation. If you're the sort of person who believes (2) is the case, then the way Tyria's C-suites look is simply what would naturally happen when you don't have the same oppressive baggage that Earth does, so no further explanation is required. 

None of the above makes @Blood Red Arachnid.2493's standard any less accurate or useful. Many folks simply have a different standard for what "natural reality" is, and therefore seek no further explanation for why gender representation among leaders is so different in Tyria.

On 5/2/2022 at 6:50 PM, NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

Guild Wars 2 is at its finest at this while the writers do not try and force it. The reason, in my opinion, Kasmeer and Marjory are one of the better (the best?) same-gender couples in-game is because Anet never goes out of their way to make a number out of it - just like what I said about gender roles above. Because if you do go and put things like "beat up the bigot" in the actual gameplay, you end up hurting and potentially breaking the immersion.

I said the exact same thing earlier in this thread - I wholeheartedly agree with you on Kas & Jory. Their treatment represents the best form of narrative progressivism I've seen thus far. Sticking with @Blood Red Arachnid.2493's standards, same-sex marriages are (obviously) a real thing IRL, and is in fact highly celebrated IRL in many places as well. In fact, I'd say that most modern (at least Western) cultures have gotten to the point where it's not a big deal of any kind at all. So ANet has no need to go out of their way to explain why everyone is perfectly fine with Kas & Jory being a pair... and they do precisely that. Nothing. They're just together, no preaching, no finger wagging, no soapbox grandstanding. No element of the overall story is ever sacrificed in the name of putting their same-sex relationship on a pedestal.

And guess what? This sort of representation probably does tons more to solidify a progressive narrative than the story insisting on reminding us that Yao is agender.

[Scavarius.6059]

On 4/24/2022 at 8:49 AM, Dawdler.8521 said:

And Logan and Rytlock isnt a couple.... Yet.

hey, renember when we set out on an epic adventure to rekindle their bromance and casualy murder a imperator that was in the process of ascending to godhood? good times

[captaincrash.6528]

when a supposedly savant tier engineer of a new type of power can only introduce themselves to me regarding their sexuality, and not their abilities or stature or achievements or renown, i felt like i was being pandered to. this person literally has nothing going on but their sex life? what has that got to do with me or the world or the story? none of the other characters whose sexuality is part of their character jumped in to introduce themselves like that, we learnt it naturally because its not the point.

No subtlety, just pandering. Their disabled rep (Taimi) i find incredibly offensive and tasteless, but that doesnt matter, they have the disabled box ticked and they let us know it, so they did the right thing. Right? Initially i was not so off put, as whenever Taimi was on screen this part of her character was displayed visually, only brought up in dialogue when characters felt it was necessary. they adhered to this for so long, until sort of just forgetting it, then giving her a cure-all pair of shoes which is just really wrong imo if youre gonna introduce someone with a terminal life threatening illness, and just say hey we can just cure that now in this make believe world so she doesnt even need to worry about it herself.
tired of the low hanging fruit of pandering to the crowd. can we stay on topic please? If Taimi has 0 repercussions for being disabled then dont put it in the story, if Yao or whoevers sexuality isnt pertinent to the story, why do we need to know? is there going to be a storybeat focusing on agender characters? why is a throwaway line relevant? i can only imagine people feel as slapped in the face as i do whenever Taimi does her sob story crap on screen where nothing happens, theres no consequence, and she can just wear special shoes to forget it all.

At least there is only budget for one disabled rep, so we dont have to deal with any other failed attempts at that character "beat". These parts of human identity and life are being played for tropes, and its just very very lame now, almost insulting in parts. wish i could put on special shoes and pretend cystic fibrosis doesnt exist, but i know guild wars is make believe. Why do i even think about that when playing a fantasy video game? well it tries to paint me as if i could exist in this world, and in the next breath that itd never be an issue, its just a label i get so i can be special in Tyria, nothing else to it apparently, so i feel like maybe it shouldnt have been the focus of a character if it couldnt have been dealth with properly.

Edited May 31, 2022 by captaincrash.6528

[Kalavier.1097]

1 hour ago, captaincrash.6528 said:

then giving her a cure-all pair of shoes which is just really wrong imo if youre gonna introduce someone with a terminal life threatening illness, and just say hey we can just cure that now in this make believe world so she doesnt even need to worry about it herself.

Besides the fact they literally, explicitly, beyond clearly state that all the medical gear she gets and wears in EoD does is help deal with the pain and mobility problems, and otherwise is not a cure at all. It just means she can operate without as severe symptoms.

Quote

Taimi: Uh-huh! Can't very well have this whole place just go dark, now, can we?

Taimi: Besides, I'm not ready to give up this suit.

Taimi: It hasn't changed any of the big things... Nothing will, and I'm pretty much at peace with that...

Taimi: But I didn't realize how much the little things were adding up. I've got more energy, I'm thinking more clearly...

Taimi: So, I'm not gonna rest until we find a way to keep the dragonjade charged.

Gorrik: Maybe a little bit of rest.

Taimi: Yes, yes... I don't actually mean NO rest. My midafternoon nap is nonnegotiable.

Taimi: But jade tech is my first, second, and third priority until we have a solution.

 

So she hasn't been cured and acting as if she explicitly has been at this point is literally just lying.

[Bast.7253]

I wouldn't consider Gorrik as effiminate or whatever. He's just nerdy, and asura. 

I didn't really like any of the characters from this expansion regardless of their gender, or lack of gender. 

I will say that we are long overdue for a story beat that just involves Canach, Gorrik, Rhytlock, and Faren. (Maybe a sassy non-Braham norn.)

Also, Caithe, your mission is complete. Bye, girl. 
 

I get why they did it in Dead End Bar but I think I would have preferred the wedding be some elaborate decorated wedding in Lion's Arch or something.. with Aurene and many other characters that have been in this story arc and are still around as guests. Something that ties things in better than eloping by a fireplace in a shack with no windows during the middle of the day. Like it's not even a NICE bar.

 

[Kalavier.1097]

25 minutes ago, Bast.7253 said:

I get why they did it in Dead End Bar but I think I would have preferred the wedding be some elaborate decorated wedding in Lion's Arch or something.. with Aurene and many other characters that have been in this story arc and are still around as guests. Something that ties things in better than eloping by a fireplace in a shack with no windows during the middle of the day. Like it's not even a NICE bar.

 

As far as I know, they didn't have the wedding. They just announced it was happening and formally proposed.

Quote

Lady Kasmeer Meade: Commander, Jory! I thought you were on the grand tour?

Marjory Delaqua: We are. Just wanted to stop by and say hello.

Lady Kasmeer Meade: Hello, fiancée.

 

[The Greyhawk.9107]

8 hours ago, captaincrash.6528 said:

when a supposedly savant tier engineer of a new type of power can only introduce themselves to me regarding their sexuality, and not their abilities or stature or achievements or renown, i felt like i was being pandered to. this person literally has nothing going on but their sex life? what has that got to do with me or the world or the story? none of the other characters whose sexuality is part of their character jumped in to introduce themselves like that, we learnt it naturally because its not the point.

No subtlety, just pandering. Their disabled rep (Taimi) i find incredibly offensive and tasteless, but that doesnt matter, they have the disabled box ticked and they let us know it, so they did the right thing. Right? Initially i was not so off put, as whenever Taimi was on screen this part of her character was displayed visually, only brought up in dialogue when characters felt it was necessary. they adhered to this for so long, until sort of just forgetting it, then giving her a cure-all pair of shoes which is just really wrong imo if youre gonna introduce someone with a terminal life threatening illness, and just say hey we can just cure that now in this make believe world so she doesnt even need to worry about it herself.
tired of the low hanging fruit of pandering to the crowd. can we stay on topic please? If Taimi has 0 repercussions for being disabled then dont put it in the story, if Yao or whoevers sexuality isnt pertinent to the story, why do we need to know? is there going to be a storybeat focusing on agender characters? why is a throwaway line relevant? i can only imagine people feel as slapped in the face as i do whenever Taimi does her sob story crap on screen where nothing happens, theres no consequence, and she can just wear special shoes to forget it all.

At least there is only budget for one disabled rep, so we dont have to deal with any other failed attempts at that character "beat". These parts of human identity and life are being played for tropes, and its just very very lame now, almost insulting in parts. wish i could put on special shoes and pretend cystic fibrosis doesnt exist, but i know guild wars is make believe. Why do i even think about that when playing a fantasy video game? well it tries to paint me as if i could exist in this world, and in the next breath that itd never be an issue, its just a label i get so i can be special in Tyria, nothing else to it apparently, so i feel like maybe it shouldnt have been the focus of a character if it couldnt have been dealth with properly.

To re-iterate what Kalavier.1097 already said, the shoes aren't a cure, they only help Taimi manage her symptoms, pain, and increase her mobility (something that will be very temporary if the Energy Crisis for Joon's jade tech isn't solved, though it likely will) but it does little to nothing to treat her underlying condition which Taimi herself admits will likely end her life.  But as has been recently bought up in another thread in this sub-forum, people can still live long lives even with conditions that have a very short life expectancy: that same thread cites Steven Hawking, someone that lived 50 years longer than the 2 year life expectancy that comes with ALS.

I can't say I agree at all that the fact of Taimi being "disabled", or the writers handling of that, is either pandering or tasteless or even in-your-face.  If memory serves, prior to season 4  and aside from one conversation you have with her about her condition during one of the first 'Festival of the Four Winds' (which was temporary content) the only sign you see that she's possibly physically disabled is her limp, which is itself pretty rare since she's usually riding her golem (which canonically is something many able bodied Asura like to do).  Overall its just not something that's actually central to her character: the story instead emphasizes the fact that she's brilliant even for an Asura, that she's (over-)enthusiastic about the subjects that interest her (including questionable ones like her early obsession with Scarlet Briar), that she has a lot of the immaturity that comes with a child and later a teen as well as a lot of the quirky-ness that can also come with being a kid, and she's very dedicated to finding a solution to the the Elder Dragons.  I don't see any of this "tastelessness" that you claim exists here.