[PoF Spoilers] Succession of gods and their predecessors

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

And if Jessica said nothing because she just wanted to keep speculations going among the fanbase? Anet showed that they rather enjoy seeing people theorycraft quite a bit, so they do tend to avoid confirming or denying when asked about popular theories. It's also possible that they intended nothing when making the three associations to Lyssa, but saw player reactions and went "hmm, maybe we could use this? Put it on the drawing board and forbid devs from commenting just in case." Wouldn't be the first time Anet seemingly got inspired by player theory rather than had it planned all along.

Jessica had the same kind of answer to the question of if Lonai was holding the Staff of the Mists in Aurene's vision, which we clearly know with better observation of the cinematic that she didn't (auroraeleonora was the one who asked that question too, and answered herself later saying "Joko's staff" (though that too was wrong ;))). So I would argue that kind of response holds no weight on the matter.

[Tyson.5160]

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:And if Jessica said nothing because she just wanted to keep speculations going among the fanbase? Anet showed that they rather enjoy seeing people theorycraft quite a bit, so they do tend to avoid confirming or denying when asked about popular theories. It's also possible that they intended nothing when making the three associations to Lyssa, but saw player reactions and went "hmm, maybe we could use this? Put it on the drawing board and forbid devs from commenting just in case." Wouldn't be the first time Anet seemingly got inspired by player theory rather than had it planned all along.

Jessica had the same kind of answer to the question of if Lonai was holding the Staff of the Mists in Aurene's vision, which we clearly know with better observation of the cinematic that she didn't (auroraeleonora was the one who asked that question too, and answered herself later saying "Joko's staff" (though that too was wrong ;))). So I would argue that kind of response holds no weight on the matter.

Well it’s also possible that they don’t know what they are talking about and don’t want to commit to an answer without watching a Woodenpotatoes video? and doing their research, which kinda puts into question really any dev response, unless they grant someone at the company the lore master status and anything from their mouth is canon.

Honestly Konig, I feel like sometimes we might over analyze beyond the story plot and narrative team’s design sometimes.

Go apply to the company so you can keep all the lore straight ?

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

Didn't they recently hire someone who's job is primarily to keep narrative between the LW releases and expansion consistent (beginning with Season 4)? So that position would be filled. :tongue:

[DarcShriek.5829]

All I know is that moments after leaving Balthazar, someone introduced us to their new powers

[Nikolai.3648]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:Except you never said anything about "whether Mordremoth would be used or not". You said "Mordremoth was questionable". You gave zero context, and I mentioned that lack of context right off the bat, [...]

Where did you mention it? If you really did, I must have missed it, which surprises me a little, but of course could be the case as I am forced due to real life to spend much less time writing my posts here that I would like. Regardless, I am sorry that you misunderstood that, I thought it would be obvious.

@Nikolai.3648 said:

And Trueclaw never once mentions the gods... So I don't know where

that

comes from.

I also mentioned the fact that Trueclaw did not mention the dragons. And gave an explanation. Maybe you should reread my post?

"even the NPC you brought up was listed sometimes as an argument, as she muses about the number difference."

I am referring to this part here:

@Nikolai.3648 said: Being a charr, she could have simply missed the human gods as an obvious answer, making her into a twist of an "the cloudcuckoolander was right" scenario, a rather common trope in video games.

It was the sentence after the one you quoted. How did you miss that?

My point being that she doesn't muse any number difference.

Yes, she muses. She even uses "…" at the end of her thoughts. I am afraid that you and I remember differently in this case.

And in all I can recall, no one ever brought up a "number difference by Trueclaw" as an argument for relating the Elder Dragons to Six Gods except for one person who thought she meant five dragons against six somethings, due to not knowing the orders-relevant dialogue where Trueclaw specified five races.

It is obvious that you need to think that there are 6 dragons to connect them to the 6 gods, which is the very base of the theory. It is not about any number difference, it is about the number itself. I know for certain that this NPC came up a few times as an argument for 6 dragons, but I am afraid I don’t have the time to dig around forums to prove it.

Mordremoth's existence, however, was indeed never in question.

I am confused here. Did you just ignore my whole post up there? You even say yourself:

Your "Mordremoth-theory" which was "will Mordremoth become a plot in the future" is an entirely different matter, and prior to the Season 1 finale, would indeed have been a questionable thing

Yes, it was.

• even if the question was "when" rather than "if".

So of course, the question was not just when, but if the writers would give it the spotlight (or the Malyck treatment (, first ignoring it and claiming it will come back later, only for it to either never come up again or be retconned in some way)).

And for the record, I never said the dragon-god theory isn't valid due to the source of inspiration, but rather it isn't valid because it falls apart once you get past the halfway point no matter how one tries to explain it.

As I mentioned before:

@Nikolai.3648 said: It doesn't matter if they don’t add up 100%, I would go as far and say that it would be stupid for the writers to have done such a thing at that point, because it would have more or less forced them to go through with it, which is something you should never do from a writers point of view if you work on a game like Guild Wars.

I don’t get how you think that a few inconsistencies in what players thought on it make anything not a viable theory. While certain things changed regarding the way the authors write the story, at that time giving certain hints that may not all add up was a given and room for lots of error in theories was what followed. Just take a look at Malyck. Then at HOT. Do you think they really gave a shit about Malyck when creating HOT? No, because his mere existence could be swept under the rug and they didn’t care, did not even come up with some explanation ingame after all this time (maybe one day, I can hope…). You get my point?

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:As such the quality of a theory should be based on its ability to explain why the writers made certain decisions from a plot planners pov. While the number of hints given ingame should not be ignored, it is far more important how easily they could have later on been brushed aside, trimmed, or fleshed out into a deeper story. The 6/6-speculations are a prime example of one such theory. It gives the writers enough free way to basically act anyway they like or ignore it completely if they desire to go against it (which they did). As such it was a solid theory and, in my opinion, did not deserved to even being made fun of in a book ingame.

By this argument, I can proclaim the theory that Dwayna and Grenth are actually sibling lovers and it is just as valid as any other theory out there. Because ArenaNet doesn't care about lore consistency and it could make for an interesting plot, even though it's a thoroughly debunked statement based on what we can observe and are told.

That would mean that you think that the writers would really think of this as a viable option for the plot that will please the players in some way. If you do so, then yes, it may indeed be a viable theory. But you don’t, do you? Neither do I. But the theories in this threat here? You don’t even need to ask if people think (or thought) that they would make for interesting stories, plot twists, tales, or just epic lore. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t waste their time on it.

[Sajuuk Khar.1509]

@"Nikolai.3648" said:I don’t get how you think that a few inconsistencies in what players thought on it make anything not a viable theory.Because that is the basis for how theories get proven or debunked.

The problem with the Elder Dragon/Gods theory is that it adds some sort of connection to what is inherently nothing more then similarity based on a limited set of character qualities to draw from. Things like earth, fire, wind, water, life, death, knowledge, are classical "elements" in fantasy settings, and there is usually one, if not more then one, group of beings who are both elementally based, but they aren't connected to each other in any way beyond the fact that they both share a similar elemtnal favorite.

The Elder Dragons/Gods theory is functionally the same as trying to equate every single fire elemental as being a servant of Balthazar or Primordus because those the human god/elder dragon, of fire. That isn't how it works, none of them are related, they are just elementally focused beings, and due to the limited number of base elements to chose from, many separate groups overlap, but have nothing to do with each other.

[Nikolai.3648]

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@"Nikolai.3648" said:I don’t get how you think that a few inconsistencies in what players thought on it make anything not a viable theory.Because that is the basis for how theories get proven or debunked.

A theory can not be proven by merely being consistent. If it could, that would make multiple theories that would contradict each other but are consistent with what is known at that time true facts. This is however not the case. They may coexist but are still mere theories, not proven in any way. And what is far more important, a theory cannot necessarily be debunked by it showing a few signs of inconsistency. Mind you, we talk about a game and writing here! Sure, if someone made up a mathematical theory that contradicts with a priori derived knowledge, then we can say that the theory must be invalid. But we are talking about a story being written by naturally imperfect humans and as such what we get is not a falsifiable theory but something like a sealed box that got reached around by multiple people, each one pinning little labels on it with what they think should be inside. Now the last person has to put something in the box for us to find it when we buy and open it. In an ideal world, people would have only put tags on it that can be combined. For example: Black, furry, likes fish. The last person can then put a black cat in it and we would buy it thinking it could be a cat, maybe another animal, and be happy with the outcome. However, what happens when there are some labels on the box that contradict each other? You have two choices: Throwing it into the trash or putting something in it that the buyer might still be satisfied with. After all, as long as they are happy with what they get, what does a little inconsistency even hurt? You can even use a black marker and write over the tags that don’t fit. And this is exactly what we should have in mind. The writers are in a position to make the former facts fit their new story if they want to. They can even ignore them if they need to, as long as the story itself is well made and enough to satisfy the customer (the players). All of the theories we make up are just based on the labels of the story. That means that while some theories might contradict with the hints ingame, they may still turn out to be right. An example: In the box is the HOT story. One of the labels outside is Malyck. They still sell the box and we are happy with it. Is there a contradiction between the label and what is inside the box? Probably. Did the writers thought it would be too big of a deal to still ship it? No. Let's say someone predicted the HOT story line 100% correctly. People would say that the theory is not valid because Malyck contradicts it. Still, the theory is correct. We just don’t know that, until the box is opened. That is why you should always give such theories a certain leeway. The 6/6-theories were the same: The writers could have made an epic story out of it if they wished to. People assumed that the writers would think that taking care of a few contradictions here and there was worth the trouble. They basically did not only take ingame knowledge into account, but also estimated the writers' personality. And this is something that takes far more skill than just going through a checklist of ingame facts to check if there are contradictions. It can heavily backfire, but I respect the work people put into it. Now, I could talk about the 6/6-theory a bit longer, like how most well thought out theories went behind such elemental attributes you mentioned and instead focused on the character of the dragons and the gods (like I did in my post, but I got nowhere close to the real interpretive ones), but since it was already requested that it might be better to stick closer to the topic (sorry, Svennis), I will leave the past theories behind and just sum up what I personally think speaks for the "Lyssa will come back" - side:

There are the new~ish hints ingame that were already mentioned in this threat: Lyssa´s mirror, Lyssa´s extra mention by Kormir, Lyssa not being cursed by Balthaddon when he had enough time to curse the other four.

There is also the fact that from all gods, Lyssa is the easiest one to justify if you want to get her back into the story. She is often depicted as double sided, which makes her an ideal wild card. She is also all about making the world a better place. As long as you can make up any utilitarian sounding reasoning, her decision to stay behind/come back could easily be justified. There are also mentions of her caring especially for Elona. And of course, she has the means to do it without the other gods noticing her work. There is probably more to say here, but I think this will suffice for now.

The most important argument to me personally comes from the long term meta/writers-perspective:

If the writers would have wanted the gods far away story wise, they could have just ignored them like they more or less did before POF and the living story leading up to it. We had no reason to think they actively intervened anyway. They could have even nonchalantly dropped the fact that the gods left completely on us during the raids - Desmina could have introduced this new fact. If they did that, there would have been no doubts left, the gods are out of the picture and the writers don’t plan to pay attention to them anymore. Instead, they decided to do the exact opposite: They got them back into the picture by literary putting them into the story again, making them the central point of POF. While the writers make it look like the gods are farther away than ever lore wise, story wise they were never closer since gw1-days. I think that was intentionally. The writers don’t want to have them out of the picture. Instead, they set the stage for a longer plot that involves the gods, most likely until the third expansion hits. I can't think of any other reason for them to go through all this trouble if they really wanted to get rid of the gods. Ok, except incompetence, but for once I am optimistic that they prove to know the basics of good storytelling.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

@Nikolai.3648 said:I can't think of any other reason for them to go through all this trouble if they really wanted to get rid of the gods. Ok, except incompetence, but for once I am optimistic that they prove to know the basics of good storytelling.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying here, but I can think of one reason: providing closure to a hanging thread that a portion of the playerbase was deeply invested in. If they perceived a choice between leaving the question of the gods hanging indefinitely or tying it off in a bow when the opportunity presented itself, of course they would go with the later- especially in the wake of their decisions in HoT, where they've stated that in retrospect things like Malyck really deserved a conclusion, even though the main narrative wouldn't have supported a greater role for him and his Tree without detracting from other stories the devs were more interested in telling. Yes, there's room to build something more on this Lyssa thing, and I'm not saying it's ironclad that they won't... but if they don't, travelling to the realm of the last remaining god, and meeting her face-to-face (something that, as you note, we didn't even do in GW1), is still an appropriately climactic way to send the Six off.

In fact, the only objections I've seen come from inconsistencies with their previous storytelling, and not necessarily the broad story beats in isolation. If they had made the small tweak of Grenth and Kormir taking the souls of their followers with them instead of leaving their faithful unprotected in the Mists, and the admittedly larger tweak of founding the human identity more solidly on other traits than their faith (so that writing the gods out didn't feel like knocking down the last pillar holding up what made them interesting), I think Kormir's farewell would've gone over well enough that we wouldn't see so many of these threads hoping there will be more to come.

[ThatOddOne.4387]

I disagree. If they leave the Gods as they are now, without any concrete explanation of what they are doing, then they as a concept and storytelling component are entirely undermined. Kormir's departure was not in any way climactic, and if ArenaNet thought it was then they seriously fluffed it.

As something that has existed since the beginning of the franchise, the Gods deserve better attention and respect in the narrative. You don't see other franchises just dropping or writing off the literal Gods of the setting because another generation of writers apparently don't want to deal with them beyond vague mentions or even performing a semi-spiteful reveal that they've really been uncaring incompetents the entire time and the race they rescued from another planet were stupid for ever worshipping or offering them respect.

[Cuddy.6247]

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:Well it's not Gwen as we can actually see her (momentarily) during Hall of Chains. I doubt a god, especially Gwen as one, wouldn't just sit around while Dhuum gathers power if they were nearby.

I've heard the argument of the GW1 PC before, and it would be fitting. The problem is making them part of canon. The nature of the character means a name can never be presented in voice over, and the nature of how the accounts are linked are unlikely to allow one specific character to be chosen if the account had multiple characters. Then there's also the issue that ArenaNet still refuses to place anything close to a set answer: How many heroes were there, and how many did what? Young Heroes of Tyria presents the notion of 3 heroes, one per campaign; Calling All Thugs just lists whichever character you're on as doing everything that character has done, even if that means taking a NF character to Prophecies which would be breaking the timeline lore-wise, while Redemption for the Lost has Zenmai saying any PC, even if they're from Elona, reminds her of "a certain sunspear" (referring to the NF-origins hero). Facing the Truth has 5 Hero phantasms, while Koss on Koss in the Astralarium proclaims that the hero of the Nightfall campaign is the Prophecies hero which would seemingly negate the existence / importance of the "Sunspear" that Zenmai mentioned... and the one who helped Kormir in Istan which Koss worked alongside with a lot.

So until that befuddlement ever gets cleared up, I'm sure the GW1 PC will remain... non-existent in the story, as much as possible.

As for whether or not this new god of conflict will ever take a stage in GW2. Hard to say. While it does seem like the story of the gods has been effectively closed up (all too soon IMHO), there's enough to hint that maybe one day they'll come back to it (you know, when folks are tied to undead and dragons again).

Arachnia's existence is still debatable given that all mention of it comes from the gw.dat which is unlikely to have been made canon. And it's not likely we'll learn much at all of Abaddon's predecessor TBH.

@Torn Fierceslash.6375 said:Which made me think of the knowldge we have now, if Lyssa did come with the other gods knowledge or if she came on her own.

Not sure what you mean by Lyssa coming. I can only assume you're referring to the speculation that Lyssa is on Tyria still which, by all accounts, she's not. It's just baseless conjecture at this point, off of two very vague sentences that people want to believe implies Lyssa helped Balthazar. Even if she did help Balthazar, that wouldn't mean Lyssa is on or returned to Tyria.

Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Cuddy.6247 said:Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

I was more referring to how we get one source saying that there was a hero who rose through the ranks from Elona who was separate from the one from Ascalon, and then this source saying the hero of Nightfall was from Ascalon, leaving it questionable how the situation is.

Simply put, there is nothing to forgive, it's just that ArenaNet has never been very consistent with how many heroes there were in GW1, and what they had done compared to any others.

[Balor.8432]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Cuddy.6247 said:Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

I was more referring to how we get one source saying that there was a hero who rose through the ranks from Elona who was separate from the one from Ascalon, and then this source saying the hero of Nightfall was from Ascalon, leaving it questionable how the situation is.

Simply put, there is nothing to forgive, it's just that ArenaNet has never been very consistent with how many heroes there were in GW1, and what they had done compared to any others.

In my opinion I always assumed that there was just one hero, mainly because of game play reasons they added two new starter areas in Factions and Nightfall as sort of a starting zone for new players. I could be wrong though but i don't think it would make sense time travel wise ( for nightfall and faction heroes to go to ascalon) or the 4 main supporting Henchmen, Devona Cynn, Aidan and Mhenlo to be canon if their was no hero to stop the titans or the lich (unless they are the cannon heroes that stopped him).

[mtpelion.4562]

I think that the distinction between "campaign" and "expansion" has bearing on canon. It would make the most sense for each campaign to represent a different being, while the expansion is a continuation of a being's story.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Torn Fierceslash.6375 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@"Cuddy.6247" said:Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

I was more referring to how we get one source saying that there was a hero who rose through the ranks from Elona who was separate from the one from Ascalon, and then this source saying the hero of Nightfall was from Ascalon, leaving it questionable how the situation is.

Simply put, there is nothing to forgive, it's just that ArenaNet has never been very consistent with how many heroes there were in GW1, and what they had done compared to any others.

In my opinion I always assumed that there was just one hero, mainly because of game play reasons they added two new starter areas in Factions and Nightfall as sort of a starting zone for new players. I could be wrong though but i don't think it would make sense time travel wise ( for nightfall and faction heroes to go to ascalon) or the 4 main supporting Henchmen, Devona Cynn, Aidan and Mhenlo to be canon if their was no hero to stop the titans or the lich (unless they are the cannon heroes that stopped him).

It was confirmed that going "backwards" was mechanics only and not lore, but that wouldn't stop other "heroes" from showing up. Plus if there was canonically only one, why would they have now two sources saying more than one (Young Heroes of Tyria book in GW1 showing 3, Facing the Truth in GW2 showing 5). Plus, the events on Istan and Shing Jea always happen, so who filled the role of a Factions / Nightfall PC?

[Balor.8432]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Torn Fierceslash.6375 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@"Cuddy.6247" said:Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

I was more referring to how we get one source saying that there was a hero who rose through the ranks from Elona who was separate from the one from Ascalon, and then this source saying the hero of Nightfall was from Ascalon, leaving it questionable how the situation is.

Simply put, there is nothing to forgive, it's just that ArenaNet has never been very consistent with how many heroes there were in GW1, and what they had done compared to any others.

In my opinion I always assumed that there was just one hero, mainly because of game play reasons they added two new starter areas in Factions and Nightfall as sort of a starting zone for new players. I could be wrong though but i don't think it would make sense time travel wise ( for nightfall and faction heroes to go to ascalon) or the 4 main supporting Henchmen, Devona Cynn, Aidan and Mhenlo to be canon if their was no hero to stop the titans or the lich (unless they are the cannon heroes that stopped him).

It was confirmed that going "backwards" was mechanics only and not lore, but that wouldn't stop other "heroes" from showing up. Plus if there was canonically only one, why would they have now two sources saying more than one (Young Heroes of Tyria book in GW1 showing 3, Facing the Truth in GW2 showing 5). Plus, the events on Istan and Shing Jea always happen, so who filled the role of a Factions / Nightfall PC?

I assume henchmen that were Shing Jea students of Master Todo did the starter for factions area and Koss+ other heros did the starter area for nightfall lore wise, Anet writing was never the most logical in gaming with a few plot holes here and there.

[Cuddy.6247]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Cuddy.6247 said:Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

I was more referring to how we get one source saying that there was a hero who rose through the ranks from Elona who was separate from the one from Ascalon, and then this source saying the hero of Nightfall was from Ascalon, leaving it questionable how the situation is.

Simply put, there is nothing to forgive, it's just that ArenaNet has never been very consistent with how many heroes there were in GW1, and what they had done compared to any others.

Tyrian hero could apply to the world. So...

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Cuddy.6247 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Cuddy.6247 said:Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

I was more referring to how we get one source saying that there was a hero who rose through the ranks from Elona who was separate from the one from Ascalon, and then this source saying the hero of Nightfall was from Ascalon, leaving it questionable how the situation is.

Simply put, there is nothing to forgive, it's just that ArenaNet has never been very consistent with how many heroes there were in GW1, and what they had done compared to any others.

Tyrian hero could apply to the world. So...

It's unlikely that Koss would say "the world hero" to specify someone from Elona, let alone would that be a common terminology. Especially since "Tyrian" usually refers to people and objects from the Central Tyria nations.

That just seems like very odd wording, in all honesty.

[Cuddy.6247]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Cuddy.6247 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Cuddy.6247 said:Koss on Koss could probably be forgiven because even if it was the Prophecies hero, you still become a sunspear - although your initiation is rather short. You help when Kormir is recruiting aid in foreign lands, set foot in Elona to meet her and become an honorable sunspear, help them reclaim Champion's Dawn, take the fight to Varesh at the docks and then afterward reclaim Sunspear Sanctuary - this all happens after the hero's arrival regardless of which campaign they're from. So you're a sunspear even if you don't have NF origins.

I was more referring to how we get one source saying that there was a hero who rose through the ranks from Elona who was separate from the one from Ascalon, and then this source saying the hero of Nightfall was from Ascalon, leaving it questionable how the situation is.

Simply put, there is nothing to forgive, it's just that ArenaNet has never been very consistent with how many heroes there were in GW1, and what they had done compared to any others.

Tyrian hero could apply to the world. So...

It's unlikely that Koss would say "the world hero" to specify someone from Elona, let alone would that be a common terminology. Especially since "Tyrian" usually refers to people and objects from the Central Tyria nations.

That just seems like very odd wording, in all honesty.

I don't think it's that odd. Referred to as the Tyrian hero for the world over because they were a hero all around the world - not just the hero of Cantha, Elona or Central Tyria. You seem to be thinking too much into it.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

The phrasing is equivalent to "the hero from Tyria". It would be like us calling someone "the Earthling hero" or "the human hero" long before any space travel or cross-species communications.

[Cuddy.6247]

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:The phrasing is equivalent to "the hero from Tyria". It would be like us calling someone "the Earthling hero" or "the human hero" long before any space travel or cross-species communications.

Or what if someone was called the European hero? Vague enough that you could attribute to someone who saved Europe, came from Europe or was a member of the European Union.