Skritt

[Squeesidhe.4761]

Me: "Hey, these Skritt are actually pretty nice when you get to know them. And they are allies in the fight against the Elder Dragons. Plus, they're kinda cute! I think I'll help them in various group events."

 

Also me: *murders hundreds of Skritt in cold blood, wiping entire communities off the map*

[Pheex.8932]

1 hour ago, Squeesidhe.4761 said:

Also me: *murders hundreds of Skritt in cold blood, wiping entire communities off the map*

 

You're not actually supposed to do those quests. It's a morality test.

[DeanBB.4268]

1 hour ago, Squeesidhe.4761 said:

Me: "Hey, these <<pretty much everything>> are actually pretty nice when you get to know them. And they are allies in the fight against the Elder Dragons. Plus, they're kinda cute! I think I'll help them in various group events."

Also me: *murders hundreds of <<everything>> in cold blood, wiping entire communities off the map*

Fixed that for ya.

[Gibson.4036]

I like that over the years ArenaNet has added friendly, "good" groups of most of the "bad" races. They're sentient, none of them should be inherently badguys.

The one race that stands out to me as an exception is the Krait. I haven't seen a good community of them. Cantha living world chapter would be a great place to have us run across some.

[Urud.4925]

I wish ArenaNet added a Skritt combat tonic. Last week I wanted to start a permadeath challenge and I hoped to do it role playing a Skritt, but unfortunately only normal tonics :/  It would be so cool to play a... 5-rat dungeon.

[Scalacious.4139]

15 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

I like that over the years ArenaNet has added friendly, "good" groups of most of the "bad" races. They're sentient, none of them should be inherently badguys.

I don't like this new trend at all. I mean, it's fantasy, there should just be races that are practically always evil or that are always good. It's very reminiscent of the current debate about orcs.

[Danikat.8537]

51 minutes ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

I don't like this new trend at all. I mean, it's fantasy, there should just be races that are practically always evil or that are always good. It's very reminiscent of the current debate about orcs.

I don't think it's a new trend. Fantasy has always had races which can be good or evil (or simply allies or enemies) depending on circumstances - including humans. For example DnD has always had rules on using all the playable races as enemies. The same thing happened (and happens) in mythology too.

[Gibson.4036]

1 hour ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

I don't like this new trend at all. I mean, it's fantasy, there should just be races that are practically always evil or that are always good. It's very reminiscent of the current debate about orcs.

What current debate about orcs?

I don't see a reason why there needs to be inherently evil or good races. How does that make for more interesting, engaging story?

[Shuzuru.3651]

17 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

I like that over the years ArenaNet has added friendly, "good" groups of most of the "bad" races. They're sentient, none of them should be inherently badguys.

The one race that stands out to me as an exception is the Krait. I haven't seen a good community of them. Cantha living world chapter would be a great place to have us run across some.

Over the years ? 

I'm pretty sure every minor sentient race who got their good community got them from the start of the game, they didn't really added any who doesn't already existed. The only except I may see would be centaur with dry top, but that's it (and lorewise, friendly centaur already existed, so nothing really new there too). 

 

And of course there are some who don't get it and probably won't ever, krait and harpies. 

Edit : also, to counter balance a bit those 2, there are also 2 purely good minor race : quaggan and kodan

Edited October 14, 2022 by Shuzuru.3651

[Gibson.4036]

1 minute ago, Shuzuru.3651 said:

Over the years ? 

I'm pretty sure every minor sentient race who got their good community got them from the start of the game, they didn't really added any who doesn't already existed. The only except I may see would be centaur with dry top, but that's it (and lorewise, friendly centaur already existed, so nothing really new there too). 

 

Fair. Maybe I just discovered them over the years so it felt that way.

While it's not the same thing, I do also like the introduction of non-militant Charr as an alternative to the Charr we knew.

Harpies, I don't ever need to see a good version. I really would like to see what a peaceful Krait would be like, though. I think it would be a great contrast to show how far the slaver, scavenger Krait we know have fallen.

[Raknar.4735]

"I'm hit!"

[Danikat.8537]

The krait's aggression towards other races stems from seeing themselves as superior to all other lifeforms. They see everyone else as at best smart animals that might be useful slaves and at worst just another kind of animal to be ignored, driven off, eaten or sacrificed as needed. So I imagine 'good' krait would be at either extreme of their social spectrum.

One option is they're so secure in their power and presence that they don't feel any need to drive off other races and have been able to abandon slavery (although I imagine that would involve a not entirely different system like indentured servitude or a strict caste system with lower ranking krait serving the same functions as slaves do in the groups we've seen). Maybe they've also designated one specific animal as the only appropriate sacrifice to their prophets too.

Or at the other extreme an isolated enclave that started off as a small group of krait too weak to fight the surrounding nation/s, maybe ones with no religious leaders to enforce their message and who were treated kindly by their neighbours and over time lost their aggression towards other races.

The first could fit with us exploring further into the Endless Ocean. Maybe we encounter krait and lagos who have formed a kind of truce because the only real threat to either is the unspecified monsters that have driven other krait and quaggans inland. The second could fit with something like going to the far side of the Jade Sea, or a new continent - maybe they were washed inland by the tsunami when Zhaitain rose Orr and have stayed there ever since.

[Kalavier.1097]

On 10/13/2022 at 3:56 PM, Gibson.4036 said:

I like that over the years ArenaNet has added friendly, "good" groups of most of the "bad" races. They're sentient, none of them should be inherently badguys.

The one race that stands out to me as an exception is the Krait. I haven't seen a good community of them. Cantha living world chapter would be a great place to have us run across some.

I recall years ago early on GW2, Anet outright came forth and said the only race that is 100% pure evil was Krait. They are completely unique in this regard due to how they raise their children in complete isolation from all other species. Anet outright says that no matter what, we'll have good and bad groups of every race out there somewhere. Naga used to be good but turned hostile because of the jade wind.

 

15 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

The krait's aggression towards other races stems from seeing themselves as superior to all other lifeforms. They see everyone else as at best smart animals that might be useful slaves and at worst just another kind of animal to be ignored, driven off, eaten or sacrificed as needed. So I imagine 'good' krait would be at either extreme of their social spectrum.

One option is they're so secure in their power and presence that they don't feel any need to drive off other races and have been able to abandon slavery (although I imagine that would involve a not entirely different system like indentured servitude or a strict caste system with lower ranking krait serving the same functions as slaves do in the groups we've seen). Maybe they've also designated one specific animal as the only appropriate sacrifice to their prophets too.

Or at the other extreme an isolated enclave that started off as a small group of krait too weak to fight the surrounding nation/s, maybe ones with no religious leaders to enforce their message and who were treated kindly by their neighbours and over time lost their aggression towards other races.

The first could fit with us exploring further into the Endless Ocean. Maybe we encounter krait and lagos who have formed a kind of truce because the only real threat to either is the unspecified monsters that have driven other krait and quaggans inland. The second could fit with something like going to the far side of the Jade Sea, or a new continent - maybe they were washed inland by the tsunami when Zhaitain rose Orr and have stayed there ever since.

An easy option that some may dislike would be Krait/Naga who were raised split from their native groups, or raised themselves into a new culture. Like every adult died and the young (still too young to fully imprint the evil culture/hostile to human culture the adults are pushing) fended for themselves or were rescued by others and thus ended up with different views from the rest of the race.

Could even be part of having to defend them from regular Krait/Naga trying to wipe out or "correct" the group. IIRC the Toxic Alliance krait ended up with a "Kill on sight" order from all other krait.

Interestingly, I wonder how Krait would interact with Naga. Would they consider the other race weak and reduced because of their former friendliness to humans? Or would they accept them because of the relation to Leviathans? We have old concept art of Krait working with (or summoning) Leviathans, much like how in EoD we see Naga following Leviathan young around.

 

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

Technically we don't actually slaughter a bunch of enemies in open-world, that's just an intentional disconnect between gameplay and lore to make the game worth playing (similar to waypoints, asura gates, etc). While we definitely do get violent when necessary, you can probably assume we did most of the hearts in the most heroic way possible as no one has sever acted like we're a threat besides Joko.

 

The story missions have alot of death but most enemies there give you no choice, in almost ever case its either them or you and they make that clear from the start.

Edited October 15, 2022 by Mariyuuna.6508

[Scalacious.4139]

On 10/14/2022 at 2:56 PM, Gibson.4036 said:

What current debate about orcs?

There is a rather huge debate wether orcs are inherently evil, mostly focussing on the DnD versions.

These have undergone a few changes recently, such as the removal of negative stat modifiers (they always had a malus on intelligence) and the move away from 'always evil' alignment. It started with a social justice movement that claimed to have identified orcs as an image of Mongols and/or blacks and said that these groups would still suffer today if orcs were portrayed that way. Until then, orcs were only playable as a monster race and the normal player race from the Players Handbook were half-orcs, who also had it written in their character description that they were not 'children born of love'.

 

On 10/14/2022 at 2:56 PM, Gibson.4036 said:

I don't see a reason why there needs to be inherently evil or good races. How does that make for more interesting, engaging story?

Because it helps to have groups that you can directly identify as opponents (or allies). It would be crazy if you had to find out before every encounter with undead, for example, whether they are good or evil undead. Games like Guildwars make it easy, of course, because the name is either in red or green and then you know. But when you play DnD, for example, it's not always so clear.

 

On 10/14/2022 at 2:19 PM, Danikat.8537 said:

I don't think it's a new trend. Fantasy has always had races which can be good or evil (or simply allies or enemies) depending on circumstances - including humans. For example DnD has always had rules on using all the playable races as enemies.

Those are two different things. Of course there are races that are either good or bad or something in between. These races are easily the majority, but there have always been races that were practically exclusively on one side of the moral spectrum. And while we're on the subject of DnD, orcs (not half-orcs) have pretty much always been evil. Just like Mindflayer or Star Spawn or heaps of other creature groups and races.

[Danikat.8537]

2 hours ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

Because it helps to have groups that you can directly identify as opponents (or allies). It would be crazy if you had to find out before every encounter with undead, for example, whether they are good or evil undead. Games like Guildwars make it easy, of course, because the name is either in red or green and then you know. But when you play DnD, for example, it's not always so clear.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily a problem in DnD, it can lead to some interesting encounters. The best one I've heard about is a group of kids (one of the parents was the DM) who would always try to talk to everyone and everything before doing anything else. They got past a boss they couldn't hope to beat in a fight (I forget what exactly, some type of enslaved monster) by asking him if he liked guarding the wizard's tower and if his master was nice to him, and ended up convincing him to let them past in return for some gold and food and recommendations of places to look for a better job.

In more normal games it makes storylines less predictable if you don't immediately know who and what is good or evil and which side you want to be on. Or at least gives the party something (else) to argue about.
 

3 hours ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

Those are two different things. Of course there are races that are either good or bad or something in between. These races are easily the majority, but there have always been races that were practically exclusively on one side of the moral spectrum. And while we're on the subject of DnD, orcs (not half-orcs) have pretty much always been evil. Just like Mindflayer or Star Spawn or heaps of other creature groups and races.

If we're talking specifically about DnD orcs then yes, that's true. But this topic was originally about skirtt and then expanded to be about other GW2 races with other fantasy races used as examples to compare them to, so I was talking in general terms when I said it's not a new trend. There have always been some races which could  be good or evil or anything in between so it's not surprising that GW2 has some as well.

Even for orcs it's not that new. Morrowind is the first game I know of where orcs could be good player characters (in Daggerfall they were non-playable enemies, but you could still negotiate with them and could choose to side with them at the end) and there may have been others before then. It's just new for orcs in DnD.

[Gibson.4036]

Inherently evil Orcs make sense in LotR, since they were originally created by somehow twisting and corrupting elves. Take out the evil, and you don’t have an orc.

I guess I like redemption stories, though, and appreciate characters that have escaped a destiny of evil.

I’d actually appreciate a D&D game where it’s not just race=kill on sight. Play a superhero game and the bad guys actually have to be doing bad things before you attack them. Why would it need to be any different in a fantasy game?

Edited October 17, 2022 by Gibson.4036

[Aralicia.6157]

6 hours ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

There is a rather huge debate wether orcs are inherently evil, mostly focussing on the DnD versions.

These have undergone a few changes recently, such as the removal of negative stat modifiers (they always had a malus on intelligence) and the move away from 'always evil' alignment.

That's not even close to being a recent thing.

DnD 3.0's Monster Manual (released October 2000, 22 years ago) already had the Orcs' alignement set to "Usually Chaotic Evil" (meaning more that 50% of the population is such); and the 3.5 version (released July 2003) had it set to "Often Chaotic Evil" (meaning between 40% and 50% of the population is such).

Even way back then, adventurer shouldn't have been that quick on the draw, but decided to ignore that in favor for considering all orcs as evil.

[Scalacious.4139]

22 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

I’d actually appreciate a D@D game where it’s not just race=kill on sight. Play a superhero game and the bad guys actually have to be doing bad things before you attack them. Why would it need to be any different in a fantasy game?

Again, that is the case for most of the encounters you have, but it is nice to have a 'no-brainer' once in a while were you see a bunch of clear bad guys (orcs, undead, slaad or whatever) were it is always morally correct to smite them.

 

4 minutes ago, Aralicia.6157 said:

That's not even close to being a recent thing.

DnD 3.0's Monster Manual (released October 2000, 22 years ago) already had the Orcs' alignement set to "Usually Chaotic Evil" (meaning more that 50% of the population is such); and the 3.5 version (released July 2003) had it set to "Often Chaotic Evil" (meaning between 40% and 50% of the population is such).

Even way back then, adventurer shouldn't have been that quick on the draw, but decided to ignore that in favor for considering all orcs as evil.

And where do you get that the percentages refer to the 'evil' part and not the 'chaotic' part? I would rather interpret this as meaning that most are 'chaotic evil', but some organise themselves into fixed structures and are then 'neutral evil' to 'lawfull evil'.

[Aralicia.6157]

17 minutes ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

And where do you get that the percentages refer to the 'evil' part and not the 'chaotic' part? I would rather interpret this as meaning that most are 'chaotic evil', but some organise themselves into fixed structures and are then 'neutral evil' to 'lawfull evil'.

And were do you get that the percentage refer only to the chaotic part and not the evil part too ?

"Usually chaotic evil" mean than above 50% are chaotic evil; and the rest are any other alignment. It's just as possible for orcs (as individuals or as organisations) to be chaotic neutral than to be neutral evil.

The point is : Even as far back as 20 years ago in DnD, orcs where not explicitly limited to being evil.

 

If you want more proof of that, I point you toward Unapproachable East, an official Forgotten Realms book for D&D 3.0, published May 2003, in which the city of phsant is presented.

This city is host to "many orcs from the Zhent legion" which "have learned to restrain their more violent nature and fit in as best they can". The leader of those orcs is Captain Grattz, a loyal neutral male orc.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Aralicia.6157

[Gibson.4036]

2 hours ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

Again, that is the case for most of the encounters you have, but it is nice to have a 'no-brainer' once in a while were you see a bunch of clear bad guys (orcs, undead, slaad or whatever) were it is always morally correct to smite them.

I'm with you on undead. I don't buy into the idea of morally neutral necromancy. Yet ANet have given us the Free Awakened. I'd also agree with anything corrupted by the elder dragons. They're essentially another kind of undead... sentient beings that are now dominated by an evil external force.

Demons, also, need not have good varieties. A demon is a demon because it has chosen evil, otherwise it'd be an angel.

Mortal, sentient races, though? I guess a moral will goes along with it in my head. If they have no choice but to be evil because of their very nature, are they actually evil?

[draxynnic.3719]

On 10/17/2022 at 10:13 PM, Gibson.4036 said:

Inherently evil Orcs make sense in LotR, since they were originally created by somehow twisting and corrupting elves. Take out the evil, and you don’t have an orc.

Even in the LotR case, there are writings from Tolkein to the effect that he was uncomfortable with the idea of a race being always evil and was considering writing them so that this was not always the case in future books. He didn't have time to really develop this, however.

It's certainly harder for orcs to be good due to what Morgoth did to them, but I don't think they'd suddenly revert to being elves if they became good either.

[Gibson.4036]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

 

It's certainly harder for orcs to be good due to what Morgoth did to them, but I don't think they'd suddenly revert to being elves if they became good either.

Certainly not. That was just my way of saying the evil is what makes them Orcs.

[Neilos Tyrhanos.5427]

On 10/17/2022 at 4:31 PM, Gibson.4036 said:

A demon is a demon because it has chosen evil, otherwise it'd be an angel.

 

That's just one interpretation of Christian demons-- that associates them with fallen angels, those who fell with Lucifer. But demons feature in dozens of other belief systems, including ones that long predate Christianity. 

[Gibson.4036]

7 minutes ago, Neilos Tyrhanos.5427 said:

 

That's just one interpretation of Christian demons-- that associates them with fallen angels, those who fell with Lucifer. But demons feature in dozens of other belief systems, including ones that long predate Christianity. 

Sort of.

The original Greek word just meant a spirit, and doesn't have to be good or evil. But our English word, "Demon," comes from applying that Greek word for Christian use.

We can refer to Asura or Tengu (the originals, not GW2 races) as demons, but that's just a translation for the closest kind of being in western culture to beings from Hindu or Shinto respectively. They aren't demons, they're Asura and Tengu.

And yes, there are inherently evil spirits in many cultures. Even if they haven't chosen evil, I buy that as well, since spirits exits on a spiritual plane. They are living ideas or concepts. Their existence is their character.