Why is killing the Elder Dragons bad again?

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

It's part of Episode 2. The Inquest have found that Kralkatorrik's hivemind has 'upgraded', so now one minion can see respond to something that another minion sees.

[castlemanic.3198]

@Aaron Ansari.1604 said:It's part of Episode 2. The Inquest have found that Kralkatorrik's hivemind has 'upgraded', so now one minion can see respond to something that another minion sees.

I did a bunch of googling and found nothing before finally just googling Kralkatorrik and finding the answer on the wiki. I had forgotten about that experiment with the two branded forgotten (i think) in a mirrored environment. Taimi says it pretty plainly that she thinks the hive mind is from Mordremoth, so I must have forgotten about that or didn't realise the importance of the statement.

For those who don't know, this is the text

PA Announcer: Imagine! Communications technology enhanced by the unique hive-mind abilities of Kralkatorrik's minions.Taimi: What? Their hive mind?Taimi: I wonder if that ability is something Kralkatorrik absorbed after Mordremoth's death. Some piece of its magical nature...

Thanks for letting me know. (I don't mean that sarcastically, you let me know where to look but I'm useless and found it another way)

[Magek.4718]

I'm also not a fan of the direction the Elder Dragons are going in.

Like, after everything Zhaitan did, after everyone he killed, Tybalt included, and you mean to tell me we SHOULDN'T have killed him?

Hell no!

And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.

A part of me believes the whole "killing elder dragons is bad" thing is a red herring and won't amount to anything. The Elder Dragons are pure evil and letting them live means letting people die.

[Tyson.5160]

@"Magek.4718" said:I'm also not a fan of the direction the Elder Dragons are going in.

Like, after everything Zhaitan did, after everyone he killed, Tybalt included, and you mean to tell me we SHOULDN'T have killed him?

Hell no!

And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.

A part of me believes the whole "killing elder dragons is bad" thing is a red herring and won't amount to anything. The Elder Dragons are pure evil and letting them live means letting people die.

It’s one of those situations where it’s good short term, bad long term.

Obviously Zhaitan had to die or he would conquer Lion Arch and most likely the rest of Tyrian Continent.

[castlemanic.3198]

@"Magek.4718" said:I'm also not a fan of the direction the Elder Dragons are going in.

Like, after everything Zhaitan did, after everyone he killed, Tybalt included, and you mean to tell me we SHOULDN'T have killed him?

Hell no!

And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.

A part of me believes the whole "killing elder dragons is bad" thing is a red herring and won't amount to anything. The Elder Dragons are pure evil and letting them live means letting people die.

Except, as we learn in Kesho, the forgotten had a plan to replace the elder dragons with the scions of Glint. Meaning that it IS possible to kill an elder dragon, so long as we have a replacement ready before it's death. Vlast and Aurene were supposed to be the replacements (with Glint herself being a possible third replacement).

We killed Zhaitan without having a replacement ready. If we did, it would have been possible to kill Zhaitan and Mordremoth with zero repercussions. But since the replacements weren't ready, we destabilized the world. Hopefully Aurene can tip the scales back into balance somewhat, and maybe another friendly dragon or two (Kuunavang and Shiny are potential replacements, if they're still kicking) would help turn the tide enough to protect most of the contemporary living races and even send help to whatever remaining dwarves there may be.

[Rognik.2579]

@Magek.4718 said:And it's not like Mordremoth or the other elder dragons are saints either. The world will end if we don't kill them.No, the world will end if we DO kill them. Our homelands might be destroyed, and they might be going after the various races themselves if that's how they are tracking the magic, but the world itself will survive. Or, if you consider that the world, then it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.@castlemanic.3198 said:Except, as we learn in Kesho, the forgotten had a plan to replace the elder dragons with the scions of Glint. Meaning that it IS possible to kill an elder dragon, so long as we have a replacement ready before it's death. Vlast and Aurene were supposed to be the replacements (with Glint herself being a possible third replacement).That's still a theory, though. It's the Forgotten's plan, but as dragons had never been replaced in the past (to our knowledge), their plan might still have failed even if Vlast hadn't become what he was. Everyone is banking on Aurene replacing Kralkatorrik as a world balancer, but we don't know if that will work or not.

[castlemanic.3198]

@Rognik.2579 said:

@"castlemanic.3198" said:Except, as we learn in Kesho, the forgotten had a plan to replace the elder dragons with the scions of Glint. Meaning that it IS possible to kill an elder dragon, so long as we have a replacement ready before it's death. Vlast and Aurene were supposed to be the replacements (with Glint herself being a possible third replacement).That's still a theory, though. It's the Forgotten's plan, but as dragons had never been replaced in the past (to our knowledge), their plan might still have failed even if Vlast hadn't become what he was. Everyone is banking on Aurene replacing Kralkatorrik as a world balancer, but we don't know if that will work or not.

It's more a counter to the statement "we shouldn't have killed an elder dragon" than anything else. You are right that it is just a theory at this point (I think Sadizi literally says "the theory was..."), but also Aurene would need to replace Moredremoth or Zhaitan at this point because I don't think we want to have another close call like nightfall on our hands. Kralkatorrik in his current state is bad news but there's two spots to fill before we should consider killing another elder dragon. It's already acknowledge in lore indirectly that it's theoretically possible for Aurene and Vlast to replace non-Kralkatorrik elder dragons by the very merit of there being two of them, and there's only one of Kralkatorrik (with Glint herself possibly taking Kralkatorrik's place, meaning Aurene and vlast would have both taken over other elder dragon's places).

The theory does however have some merit, since we know that domains can be transferred from one dragon to another (destroyers and at least one icebrood having confirmed plant and death influences, with Kralkatorrik having a confirmed death influence and at least two branded having hive mind stuff from Mordremoth), so seemingly if the domain can be transferred entirely to a benevolent dragon, we'd have a good enough replacement (or at least if that dragon gains enough power to replace an elder dragon). That's as close to a confirmation as we can get right now, until Aurene takes her place in one of the two vacant spots right now (or replaces Kralkatorrik, which is a bad move imo but we'll see where the story goes).

[SnowHawk.3615]

Think of the dragons like this: They're dams holding back all the water. Destroy one, well things begin to overflow and shift. Destroy two? Well you have a catastrophe of a flood.It's the same way for dragons and magic, they're the wall holding back the excess magic. When one is killed - it pours into another dragon like a cup.Bubbles is awake, but she has yet to be named.

[Tails.9372]

@"SnowHawk.3615" said:Think of the dragons like this: They're dams holding back all the water. Destroy one, well things begin to overflow and shift. Destroy two? Well you have a catastrophe of a flood.But this just means that we "only" need to build an "additional dam" before destroying one of the old ones.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Tails.9372 said:

@"SnowHawk.3615" said:Think of the dragons like this: They're dams holding back all the water. Destroy one, well things begin to overflow and shift. Destroy two? Well you have a catastrophe of a flood.But this just means that we "only" need to build an "additional dam" before destroying one of the old ones.

Pretty much, yes. We need to prepare at least four replacements if we want to kill all six old Elder Dragons. Though since Primordus and Jormag are asleep, Anet may push it to just two replacements, to kill Kralk and the DSD and leave the last four replacements for "future generation problems" like Dhuum, Joko, Lazarus, and Menzies were in GW1.

[Meilithar.2834]

From a mortal perspective we have no other choice than to defend ourselves and to fight the Dragons who seek to destroy us. However, on a bigger, cosmic scale, we are fundamentally wrong because by killing them we are risking to destroy all of Tyria forever.

I was sceptical with what they were doing but I'm quite happy with this direction and ultimately this dilemma. The solution of replacing the Dragons with benevolent beings is uncertain and that's adding flavours to the story. (Now in order to make me particularly happy, Anet would have to make us invade Cantha in order to reach Kuunavang or any other being able to absorb high quantities of raw magick. That would be so grim. (Or maybe to find a way to transform the sea into a solid jade like matter, could definitely be useful against Bubbles. I like this idea too but it's not the subject.))

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:Come to think of it, besides the mursaat lore tablets from Rising Flames, was it ever actually suggested the alliance was out to kill the Elder Dragons? I had always thought it was an alliance to survive the Elder Dragons. Which is a mighty big difference - and, arguably, could be why the mursaat felt that they were the betrayed ones, if they felt the purpose of the alliance was to kill the Elder Dragons.

The Mursaat left because they felt abandoned by the other races on the battlefield. In my opinion, they were the most likely to kill the Dragons just because their pride and their superiority complex would not let them do otherwise. They were not wise, they were sickly power hungry.

From the wiki page on the Mursaat :"As one of the so-called "elder races", the mursaat's influence stretches far back into ancient history, to the time of the Great Giants, when magic was wild. 10,000 years ago, when the Elder Dragons last walked the surface of Tyria feeding on its magic, the mursaat allied with the other surviving races—the dwarves, the Seers, the jotun, and the Forgotten—in order to find a way to stop the dragons. The Forgotten and the mursaat fought together against Zhaitan but failed due to lack of support from the other races.[1] Realizing the dragons to be too powerful a threat to defeat, the elder races agreed to give their magic to the Seers, who would seal it within a Bloodstone, starving the dragons."

[Michram.6853]

It is not bad.

The only fault we made (two times) was that we didn't have any vessel to hold the Dragon's magic.

Zhaitan had to be stopped, we had to kill him to save ourselves, the problem was that there was no Glint- we didn't know she was THAT important to the All; Vlast was in Kesho, imprisoned in there.

Perhaps we could imprison Zhaitan.

Anyway if we ever try to kill a dragon, we must have a vessel to keep this magic in the nature, not risking the world to collapse.

Season 4 seems to move towards this plan, having Blish (Gorrik is noone to me) and Blish's research on Kralkatorrik and Kas and Jory observes him, and Kralkatorrik is the only dragon we really know, we know about his weaknesses and his strength.

Everybody that cares about the story should read "Edge of Destiny" before the episode 4.

Mordremoth had to be killed anyway, even though we would know that killing him will cause the massive problem- we had to kill him- it was either him or Sylvari.

So those vessels will work as the Bloodstones- but we need the living vessels.

[Ephemiel.5694]

@Arden.7480 said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

[Toolbox.9375]

The solution is clear.

We need to launch the dragons into space.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Arden.7480 said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

[Ephemiel.5694]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Arden.7480 said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

[Loesh.4697]

I actually agree with Ephemiel on this one. The Elder Dragons are integral to the planets existance, and we're banking a lot on replacing them with something we don't fully understand. What if our emotional bonding with Aurene doesn't stick? she's going to be thousands of years old at some point, what if she becomes just as numb to the suffering of Tyrians as any other Dragon? We're effectively just kicking the can down the road. I think the question isn't how do we replace Dragons, it's how do we safely put them to sleep.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

[Ephemiel.5694]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

[Tyson.5160]

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

[Ephemiel.5694]

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

Not sure what your point is. Again, regardless of what we did or whether it was right or not, we killed an Elder Dragon [and later a 2nd] and destabilized The All to the point where it's close to breaking.

That's the whole point of Joko's monologue before he became dragon food, that what we did was actually something horrific.

[Tyson.5160]

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

Not sure what your point is. Again, regardless of what we did or whether it was right or not, we killed an Elder Dragon [and later a 2nd] and destabilized The All to the point where it's close to breaking.

That's the whole point of Joko's monologue before he became dragon food, that what we did was actually something horrific.

The point is Tyrians didn’t want to be slaughtered and no one knew what happened if an Elder Dragon was killed.

[Ephemiel.5694]

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

No no, just let Zhaitan take over Lions Arch and from there the rest of the Tyrian continent...

Not sure what your point is. Again, regardless of what we did or whether it was right or not, we killed an Elder Dragon [and later a 2nd] and destabilized The All to the point where it's close to breaking.

That's the whole point of Joko's monologue before he became dragon food, that what we did was actually something horrific.

The point is Tyrians didn’t want to be slaughtered and no one knew what happened if an Elder Dragon was killed.

No one but the Gods, who also knew that killing them was a horrible idea. Yet again, won't change the fact we royally screwed up by doing it.

[Tyson.5160]

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

[Ephemiel.5694]

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@"Arden.7480" said:It is not bad.

The whole point is that it was revealed to be very bad.

It's not bad to kill an Elder Dragon. It's bad to kill them without a replacement.

Which is what Arden was saying if you read the second line in his post.

Sigh. Dude, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, then it's bad to break it in the first place. Why do you always feel the need to argue with me?

Because if a lion is going to eat you and you have a gun, it's bad to not shoot it with the gun even if the lion is protected by law and shooting it would get you arrested.

And about me "always feel the need to argue" with you, technically speaking you initiated the argument this time. Honestly, I don't know you enough to care about "starting arguments" with you, let alone feeling "the need" to do so. You made a comment, I disagreed, I commented. It's as simple as that, it got nothing to do with you or arguing.

That is the worse comparison i have ever heard really.

The whole POINT is that we found out killing them was bad, even before we knew that we could replace them. Again, if it's bad to break something without replacing it, it's bad to break it in the first place. Idk how you're even comparing a random lion with literal forces of nature that dictate whether the world breaks or not.

Let me use other example. If it's bad to destroy the moon without replacing it, then it's bad to destroy the moon in general. Replacing it has nothing to do with it, it's still bad to do it.

Unless the moon was on a collision course with the earth. What you have is two bad things happening, the Elder Dragons wiping Tyria is lesser, however they also have the ability to cause mass extinction on the planet, which would happen if we killed too many dragons. The end result is the same. Let the dragon live equals bad, killing them equals bad.

Again, bad comparison because the moon colliding with Earth is not the same as the Elder Dragons, since their awakening, ravaging and subsequent slumber has happened multiple times. If we destroy the moon because it'll collide with Earth, we're screwed, "we're" as in every shred of life on Earth. Elder Dragons have gone rampant in the past and life returns because Tyria is still here [and we humans weren't even here till the Gods brought us], life won't return if we literally destroy Tyria by ripping it at the seems.

I don't understand why is this is hard to get.