Shining blade oath and the PC's "death".

[Nikolai.3648]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@"Nikolai.3648" said:Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

When four+ gods show the same set of characteristics, despite being drastically different entities, they are defined rules. We don't need something in writing for it to be defined.

I am afraid we use very different definitions of the word defined here. If you want to go with the colloquial variant that is enough to describe some characteristic features of a face, I have zero problems with it, but the word foremost implies an intensional definition, which must have been fulfilled by all of the individuals described by the word. And as I pointed out, this is not the case at all with the gods.

As for the blinding aura on Abaddon: that didn't exist in the lore in GW1, it was added to the lore with GW2, and Anet never went back to add it in (as is oft the case for their treatment of old gameplay). This is what one would call a retroactive continuity issue. It was made part of the lore for GW2, and when the devs were asked about Abaddon they had replied along the lines of "like when Malchor rested his eyes between sculpting the gods before Dwayna, GW1 players didn't look upon Abaddon long enough to go blind." This was, iirc, on GuildWars2Guru forums so with them down it'd be pretty much impossible to find the source, unfortunately.

I have a few problems with proves not being present in the finished product. We know that there were information and explanations given by the devs that turned out to be false, so I would be very careful with those. This one also makes not much sense, because we are instantly blinded by Kormir, so why wouldn’t that have happened with Abaddon in GW1 too? Yes, I am aware that they might simply not want to go back and change it, but right now the evidence in the game simply does not match your “defined” feature.

About Dhuum: Technically speaking, nothing says Dhuum is immortal; what is said is that Grenth wasn't able to kill him. Now this may mean he is unable to die (if so, based on his model, this may be because his body already broke apart but for some unexplained reason his soul maintained form; perhaps because he was the god of death), just that Grenth couldn't kill him when usurping him and decided to imprison him. Given the catastrophic nature of killing even former gods, Grenth and/or the Reapers may have decided to simply keep him imprisoned and alive than risk his magic going rampant for xyz reason. However, I would note that his body having already broken apart and yet still being alive wouldn't be all that unique, as Abaddon's body was destroyed in his defeat at the Crystal Desert in Year 0; the body we see in Nightfall was being created out of the landscape of the Realm of Torment. Dhuum is also not unique in taking power from souls, as we have a parable of Balthazar eating a soul, and just as Kormir states her personality was a mix of Abaddon's and her former mortal personality, Balthazar states in the parable that the personality of the soul will be forever a part of him.

I did not claim Dhuum to be immortal, though I would like that to be the case. You missed my point about the unique power though: Dhuum could amaze power by a soul being dispersed while it was in his realm, he did not have to consume them himself. None of the other gods so far show this power.

@"Nikolai.3648" said:You stated that gods could “absorb

any

magic”, going as far as to say that it is “one of the attributes that make them gods”. I am surly not cherry picking when I say that divine magic still being magic means that at least with Abaddon we can see this is not the case, which was my point here, showing again that any attempt at defining the human deities is pseudoscientific at best.

Being hung up on my exact wording

is

cherry picking.

"The gods can absorb almost any magic, and do so safely." - is that better?

I would call it rightfully preciseness, but to each their own.

[Narcemus.1348]

@Nikolai.3648 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

This isn't about demons, but it is about soul consumption. We know, from a tale, that Balthazar consumed the soul of a "Coward." Now, we can't prove that this tale is 100% true or just a parable, but if it were true, and souls continues to survive and would be released upon the death of their consumer, then the spirit of said coward would have been freed, but this did not seem to occur. I understand that this makes a lot of assumptions, but it does seem to point in the direction of soul extinction, as much as I hate the idea.

[Nikolai.3648]

@Narcemus.1348 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

This isn't about demons, but it is about soul consumption. We know, from a tale, that Balthazar consumed the soul of a "Coward." Now, we can't prove that this tale is 100% true or just a parable, but if it were true, and souls continues to survive and would be released upon the death of their consumer, then the spirit of said coward would have been freed, but this did not seem to occur. I understand that this makes a lot of assumptions, but it does seem to point in the direction of soul extinction, as much as I hate the idea.

I thought it is only about demons by now. At least I did already exclude (former) Gods here and Konig did exclude scarabs, so not much else is left:

@Nikolai.3648 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise.

Not really explicit proof, but we're constantly being told about the finality of a soul being devoured by a demon, despite having on multiple occasions cut up a demon to free the soul. It wouldn't really be all that final, if it was being digested for all eternity.

Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case.

There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons).

But if we want to talk about Gods, the story does go like this:

"You carried this coward when he lived. Now, I carry him, for he serves as my reminder that strength and courage are never to be taken for granted."

To me this is implying that the spirit simply became a part of Balthazar, just like Abaddon is now a part of Kormir. It is up for debate if you want to call this kind of fusion the extinction of a soul, I can understand both opinions regarding this special case.

While we are at it, there is a question I want to ask:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:When four+ gods show the same set of characteristics, despite being drastically different entities, they are defined rules. We don't need something in writing for it to be defined.

I would really like to know where you get the number 4 (or even more) from. We have only met 2 Gods in person so far (as far as we know at least; as far stretched as XY = Lyssa sounds, we can’t be sure that some deity has not directly interacted with us in disguise, but I won’t account for those hypothetical cases here): Kormir and Abaddon. I am not even sure if I want to count these two as separate beings, since we know that Abaddon is part of Kormir once she ascends - and even then, they still only fill 1 out of 6 divine seats. The other two are for all that we know former deities. While I would give Dhuum the benefit of the doubt to have kept some of his divine spark, since it explains quite much (for example how Grenth managed to beat him, who, unlike Abaddon, was for all that we know in good condition. If Grenth already had some divinity in him from his mother from the start (we don’t know how procreation works with the gods), this might mean that not only could he have had a better chance at beating Dhuum, explaining the outcome of the battle, but he might also have been unable to absorb all of Dhuums divinity because of it. That would explain how Dhuum as a former God is still around on his own and is not just a part of Grenth.), we simply lack information about this case. Which means we are left with only one divine position that we can actually draw information from. That is… not the sample size you mentioned. To conclude any definition from a single sample and expect it to hold true for a group that is six times as large as the sample size… this sounds highly suspicious. Not only that, but most of the information you mentioned we have from ingame sources, meaning they are unreliable. Even Kormir may not tell us the whole truth, since potentially leaving out some important facts would be quite befitting her, considering Abaddon, former God of Secrets, is a part of her now. So please forgive me my “cherry picking” as you called it before, but I would really prefer to have this kind of discussion without exaggerating the knowledge we truly have about the Gods.

[Durzlla.6295]

@"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:I even remember some short stories from pre-launch of GW1 describing battle from historical guild wars where monks gets killed and the narratign warrior says out loud that "well, crap if we die now, we die for good"

as for rezzing important characters, my headcannon for this would be that resurrection magic A) would require body to be "mostly" intact B) original soul needs to be accessible C) needs to be able to overpower whatever was the source of that character dying in the first place.which would explain why people sacrificed on the bloodstone can't be revived (soul not available because it is trapped in bloodstone), not sure if I remember how exacly rurik or saidra died, but for Gadd - he died in explosion - it is very likely there was nothing really left to resurrect in there and for Togo - mere mortals can't overpower envoy's instakill-spell (which also contributes to PC death during factions campaign where Shiro just randomly kills whole party at a time, and it takes rest of envoys to revive us - but only under promise we deal with shiro afterwards)

as for why it's gone, from what I understand the entity responsible for allowing it to work this way in the first place was grenth, so it would be logical that with grenth distancing himself away some of his gifts would weaken.....

other possible issue in here is arcane energy (magic) needed to be channeled to perform the thing - please note that asuran PS arcdirectly states that because of EDs activity "ambient magical levels are dropping at alarming rate" - if they were dropping like this for better chunk of last 250 years you could assume these levels used to be MUCH higher during GW1 timeline giving humans more than enought of magic juice to channel into incredible things, which now may be not as accessible simply due to not enought of magic juice floating around to do it..... (or in case of more recent events - not enought SUITABLE arcane juice floating in the air ;) )

but it's all speculation as good as any other....

point to original point stays tho - when oath was designed resurrection magic was not uncommon thing, therefore it going away with one's death would make barely any sense in terms of prevention of SB intel leaking.

Rurik and his guards died holding the line against the angry dwarfs (can’t remembwr their clan), away from the party as we opened up the gate so the ascalonian refugees and us could flee, there was literally no chance for us to get the body without dying ourselves. He was THEN turned into an Undead minion via Lich Magic, who was killed again, and told us to leave him, and then his body was claimed by the Volcano when it erupted, so him not getting revived makes perfect sense imo.

Saidra died in a similar fashion, where she ran off to distract Mursaat (pre us being infused) to give us time to escape, so her body wasn’t able to be recovered until sometime later by the Deldrimor dwarves who brought her ashes to Kaira. It’s not said if the dwarves cremated her, or if the mursaat did as a way to prevent her from coming back given how much of a nuisance she had been.

[Narcemus.1348]

@Nikolai.3648 said:

@Narcemus.1348 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case. There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons). I would think there were enough opportunities to show us that souls can’t be rescued at a certain point by now. For example: The judge claims that a soul devoured by the Eater of Souls will simply vanish – but again, we can rescue them all. Why not show us that there were indeed no souls left, only rough energy? It seems suspicious at the very least. At this point, being eternally trapped inside a demon does not only sound far crueller to me (befitting a demon), but also more likely. My quote was taken from the quest about a scarab, but I don’t see any reason for it not also applying to demons.

I wouldn't say the few times we kill a demon to let souls out is disproving the notion at all. With the exception of the Family Matters quest in GW1, all named souls we rescue were recently devoured; and in the case of the Family Matters quest, it isn't a demon we kill but a scarab. Demons and scarabs may function differently when they devour souls for all we know, as one is a Tyrian born creature while the other is a creature born from malignant energies in the Mists. There's zero reason to believe they function at all the same. We have no way to know just how long ago those souls the Eater of Souls, etc. that we witness being freed were devoured.

The only way to really disprove the notion is to be told that X Soul was devoured centuries ago by Y Demon, and we kill Y Demon and free X Soul who's perfectly fine. But even if X Soul doesn't show up, how do we prove it isn't just a case of "Oh, X Soul was actually in Z Demon after all".

I referred to what even knowledgeable characters seem to think about what happens to a soul, as seen as with The Judge: More or less immediate destruction of the soul. Granted, the word immediately was never used, but if he knew the process to take such long amount of time, his fear would be rather unfounded, as it were not impossible for a stronger spirit to come around and solve the problem. And this was indeed not the case for every demon we could test it with. So, the idea of immediate destruction of the soul is disproven in every case we tested it, while not once we can see that a soul is lost forever. Granted, we can’t prove that demons can’t devour souls at all with time or even that it takes all demons a certain amount of time for doing so this way. But all of the “few” samples we have, we can see that what most characters seem to think about what happens to the soul after it is consumed by a demon is wrong.

This isn't about demons, but it is about soul consumption. We know, from a tale, that Balthazar consumed the soul of a "Coward." Now, we can't prove that this tale is 100% true or just a parable, but if it were true, and souls continues to survive and would be released upon the death of their consumer, then the spirit of said coward would have been freed, but this did not seem to occur. I understand that this makes a lot of assumptions, but it does seem to point in the direction of soul extinction, as much as I hate the idea.

I thought it is only about demons by now. At least I did already exclude (former) Gods here and Konig did exclude scarabs, so not much else is left:

@Nikolai.3648 said:

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:While I would like to agree with that statement for the sake of simplicity, do we really have prove for this? After all, all the cases that were mentioned indicate otherwise.

Not really explicit proof, but we're constantly being told about the finality of a soul being devoured by a demon, despite having on multiple occasions cut up a demon to free the soul. It wouldn't really be all that final, if it was being digested for all eternity.

Yes, we are constantly told that…just for it to be disproven time and time again. I would dare to say that while people ingame think that this is true, it might simply not be the case.

There are zero examples of it happening (I will ignore Dhuum here for obvious reasons).

But if we want to talk about Gods, the story does go like this:

"You carried this coward when he lived. Now, I carry him, for he serves as my reminder that strength and courage are never to be taken for granted."

To me this is implying that the spirit simply became a part of Balthazar, just like Abaddon is now a part of Kormir. It is up for debate if you want to call this kind of fusion the extinction of a soul, I can understand both opinions regarding this special case.

I personally would consider when one loses their individuality forever they are no longer themselves and are thus, in this case, Soul Extinct. Especially if those words were just Balthazar trying to use pretty words to explain that the coward was now a part of Balthazar in the same way that a Chipotle burrito is a part of me after lunch. The wording could be understood both ways. But I digress. Personal opinion doesn't make fact, especially when dealing in matters that we have no factual evidence of, anyways.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Nikolai.3648 said:I am afraid we use very different definitions of the word defined here. If you want to go with the colloquial variant that is enough to describe some characteristic features of a face, I have zero problems with it, but the word foremost implies an intensional definition, which must have been fulfilled by all of the individuals described by the word. And as I pointed out, this is not the case at all with the gods.

There is yet to be a god (current or former) that breaks the similarities. With the exception of Abaddon blinding GW1 players, but as said, this was due to that piece of lore being developed for the story of Malchor, which was post-Nightfall lore design.

@Nikolai.3648 said:I have a few problems with proves not being present in the finished product. We know that there were information and explanations given by the devs that turned out to be false, so I would be very careful with those. This one also makes not much sense, because we are instantly blinded by Kormir, so why wouldn’t that have happened with Abaddon in GW1 too? Yes, I am aware that they might simply not want to go back and change it, but right now the evidence in the game simply does not match your “defined” feature.

Forum posts are basically treated by the devs as "accurate until we decide to change it" ever since a certain developer couldn't keep her facts straight and/or kept retconing forum discussion posts that were cited on the wiki for all to see. The only time game trumps non-game is when they're contradictive, and this isn't contradictive (rather, it's game and game that seems contradictive; non-game is trying to explain why it isn't, per se).

Blinding doesn't happen instantly, btw. It was a progression of the screen becoming darker during Facing the Truth (iirc, you need post-processing on to see the effect) and we recover almost instantly once she leaves, and the fact it doesn't happen instantly is also why Malchor was able to sculpt each of the six gods one by one; he only went blind because he stared too long at Dwayna. We didn't stare at Abaddon or Kormir too long in GW1 (in fact, the main tactic for fighting Abaddon is to periodically turn away and run when the graven monoliths spawn).

And if you cannot take Word of God as evidence of retcon, which is indeed fact, then consider this: Abaddon's powers were locked away behind eight gates, and at the time we confront him, he had unlocked merely 3 gates. We fought him at 3/8th his full power. Since it is the divine power which causes blindness, and he could not access it all, perhaps then, the lack of blindness was caused by this.

@Nikolai.3648 said:I did not claim Dhuum to be immortal, though I would like that to be the case. You missed my point about the unique power though: Dhuum could amaze power by a soul being dispersed while it was in his realm, he did not have to consume them himself. None of the other gods so far show this power.

You stated, and I quote, "Not only can Dhuum apparently not be killed". "Cannot be killed" = "immortal".

And Dhuum being able to amass power by a soul being dispersed is actually false. The Hall of Chains raid explains it rather point blank, that Dhuum devoured the souls of those slain in the Underworld:

Character name: How did Dhuum get free?Desmina: With every death, he grows stronger. Dhuum devoured souls for centuries to regain the power to break his bonds.Desmina: He then manipulated the river and corrupted much of the Underworld.

@Nikolai.3648 said:I would really like to know where you get the number 4 (or even more) from. We have only met 2 Gods in person so far (as far as we know at least; as far stretched as XY = Lyssa sounds, we can’t be sure that some deity has not directly interacted with us in disguise, but I won’t account for those hypothetical cases here): Kormir and Abaddon.

Kormir, Abaddon, Dhuum, and Balthazar. Former gods are still physically the same as gods, they just lack the divine power which blinds folks. I added plus because we know the other gods follow at least some of the similarities those four provide (full fledged, non-imprisoned gods blinding mortals) and there is nothing to indicate they break out of all the other similarities.

And yes, current and former gods can be grouped together:

• There are stated similarities between former Balthazar and current Kormir (biologically dead)
• There are stated similarities between current Balthazar and former Dhuum (consume souls results in inevitable end of soul)
• There are stated similarities between fallen/current Abaddon and former Dhuum (given Abaddon's power being strangeheld, it's hard to argue whether we see him on par to a former god or on par to a current god in GW1) (can maintain a non-physical body state of "living")
• There are stated similarities between current Balthazar and current Kormir and other current gods (blinds mortals)
• There are stated similarities between current Balthazar and current Dhuum (can be stripped of divine power without death)
• There are stated similarities between former Balthazar and fallen/current Abaddon (death causes body to break apart; combining souls results in merged personalities)

[norbes.3620]

About the blinding

I have always considered it to be more an act of "mercy" from the gods to blind mortals cuz it would make em turn insane to directly look at them with malchor being an example cuz he killed himself in his love for dwayna adding some known issues a lot of artists seem to have (at least those who go for their own definement of perfection but arent able to reach it)

so for me it was never necessary for a god to blind us on sight but an act of their will in order to protect those who are looking at them - it is not a devine Feature

devine entities that we are fighting against ofc would not Show this "mercy" to us

that said in gw1 the PC was not some random human either cuz he/she ws ascended/ closer to the stars/ whatever it was called in nightfall and cuz of this added with strong selfawareness and willpower he could have had some resistance to the maddening effect

in gw2 the PC is not ascended, sure during ls2 a copy of the ritual is reacted but ist also stated by ogden, that we would not ascend from it .. propably

ofc most of this are not proven Facts and just some headcanon from me in personal so feel free to Show me were im wrongalso i admit (again) that im far to lazy to search for proof of the things that are indeed stated somewere an cuz of that may not be 100% accurate too

[Castigator.3470]

Hmm. Maybe there is some form of reincarnation when it comes to souls. When they lose all their life energy, they might go dormant and eventually be reborn as something else. Maybe a mist entity, maybe a creature of flesh and blood, but the person they originally were is gone. That could explain why the judge warned the commander in such a drastic manner, because eventually, the commander may have become a daeva on Atreia, or something like that. Effectively removed from the worlds and context of GW2.

As for the Shining Blade oath: Let's hope that we are no longer bound by that, or the commander managed to do the sensible thing and cross fingers. I mean any Order of Whispers PC would have the sense to avoid being forced into such a bad situation. And if need be, we may be able to magically remove the curse, similar to how Glint was cleansed of Kralkatorrik's influence which must have been far more powerful magic to begin with.

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

@"norbes.3620" said:that said in gw1 the PC was not some random human either cuz he/she ws ascended/ closer to the stars/ whatever it was called in nightfall

I'll just throw in here random 2 cents that nightfall didn't have "ascention equivalent". While ascalonians had to perform ascention rituals, canthans went for "getting closer to the stars", elonian sunspears just got their asses kicked at gandara siege......

[Nikolai.3648]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@"Nikolai.3648" said:I did not claim Dhuum to be immortal, though I would like that to be the case. You missed my point about the unique power though: Dhuum could amaze power by a soul being dispersed while it was in his realm, he did not have to consume them himself. None of the other gods so far show this power.

You stated, and I quote, "Not only can Dhuum apparently not be killed". "Cannot be killed" = "immortal".

There is a big difference between being immortal and being unkillable: Something that is merely unkillable cannot be killed but might cease to exist with time. You can see that non-living things. For example: A legend may be unkillable (which means that even with your best efforts you can’t actively make it end), but the same time not immortal, because people will forget about it over time. To kill includes an effort to end an existence, something mortality does not imply. We might not be able to kill Dhuum in any way, but he may still cease to exist one day (for example when every lived cease to exist, leaving him without a cause). I find the idea of Dhuum being more or less the only thing in existence after the end of all life kind of satisfying and would like him feeling finally fulfilled after all this time. It seems like a fitting “end” for him.

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:And Dhuum being able to amass power by a soul being dispersed is actually false. The Hall of Chains raid explains it rather point blank, that Dhuum devoured the souls of those slain in the Underworld:

Please explain to me how he should have done so in GW1 then? Or even GW2. While we know that he actively feasts on them when he can, he certainly can’t when being sealed in the hall. If he had to actively reach a soul, he would have never woken up, since they don’t just stumble in there. Instead we have King Frozenwind explain:

“Every time a creature in the Underworld dies, the release of life energy adds to Dhuum's vigor. Too many beings are being slain in the Underworld. Dhuum grows both strong and restless.”

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:Former gods are still physically the same as gods, they just lack the divine power which blinds folks.

Do we have proof for this or is that just your personal opinion again? Dhuum and Balthazar seem to behave very differently. Dhuum possessing an armor that is actually left behind after his defeat is not the same as Balthazar creating a real looking Body. And even if you want to count that as the same (I do not), how do you want to know if the same rules apply to all of the other gods? I am still shocked that you really think it would be possible to deduct general rules for all the unknown former gods based on this sample size.

@Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

@"norbes.3620" said:that said in gw1 the PC was not some random human either cuz he/she ws ascended/ closer to the stars/ whatever it was called in nightfall

I'll just throw in here random 2 cents that nightfall didn't have "ascention equivalent". While ascalonians had to perform ascention rituals, canthans went for "getting closer to the stars", elonian sunspears just got their kitten kicked at gandara siege......

There was a comment somewhere that the writers thought it would be to bothersome to always include such an arc into the story, especially since it wasn’t needed in nightfall, which is apparently why they left it out. Not necessarily a bad decision if you ask me.

@Castigator.3470 said:Hmm. Maybe there is some form of reincarnation when it comes to souls. When they lose all their life energy, they might go dormant and eventually be reborn as something else. Maybe a mist entity, maybe a creature of flesh and blood, but the person they originally were is gone.

I think that also depends on what you want to count as a soul, which we also have never clearly specified. For example, we all seem to count spirits as souls, but does the soul include the personality and/or knowledge of the spirit, or is it merely a kind of energy?

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@"Nikolai.3648" said:There is a big difference between being immortal and being unkillable:

im·mor·tali(m)ˈmôrdl/Submitadjective1.living forever; never dying or decaying.

Technically speaking, immortal means unkillable, by either age or blade. Mind you, a lot of people use it improperly to mean merely non-aging, probably because it sounds better. But that's not its meaning at all.

Please explain to me how he should have done so in GW1 then? Or even GW2. While we know that he actively feasts on them when he can, he certainly can’t when being sealed in the hall. If he had to actively reach a soul, he would have never woken up, since they don’t just stumble in there. Instead we have King Frozenwind explain:

“Every time a creature in the Underworld dies, the release of life energy adds to Dhuum's vigor. Too many beings are being slain in the Underworld. Dhuum grows both strong and restless.”

A discussion is rather pointless if you are presented with facts, with sources, and deny them. Desmina outright states that Dhuum feasts on souls when he was sealed within the Hall of Judgment. King Frozenwind's statement does not counter this.

Do we have proof for this or is that just your personal opinion again? Dhuum and Balthazar seem to behave very differently. Dhuum possessing an armor that is actually left behind after his defeat is not the same as Balthazar creating a real looking Body. And even if you want to count that as the same (I do not), how do you want to know if the same rules apply to all of the other gods? I am still shocked that you really think it would be possible to deduct general rules for all the unknown former gods based on this sample size.

Again, I've presented my evidence for my statements. There are differences, yes, because their situations are different. But where there are differences between A and B, we see B being the same as C. In your example of Dhuum possessing armor, Abaddon's appearance is the same after he survived his body's destruction. This is most notable with seeing the Abaddon Glider which is GW2's recreation of his GW1 model (used during Facing the Truth too - you can see the shadowy body connecting the arms and head there, but because his model is made transparent, the already transparent body is harder to see). It would seem that unlike Balthazar, but like Abaddon, Dhuum lost/got rid of his original body at some point.

Basically, as I pointed out with my bullet list, we see Dhuum, Balthazar, Kormir, and Abaddon with several attributes each. All attributes are not shared among all four beings, but any one attribute is shared by at least one other god or former god.

So no, it is not my personal opinion. It is the conclusion reached by observing facts presented through visuals and words throughout the franchise. It's a simple logic puzzle.

There is, obviously, room for error. But it is downright false to state we have nothing, which you have been claiming.

[Nikolai.3648]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:There is a big difference between being immortal and being unkillable:

im·mor·tali(m)ˈmôrdl/Submitadjective1.living forever; never dying or decaying.

Technically speaking, immortal means unkillable, by either age or blade. Mind you, a lot of people use it improperly to mean merely non-aging, probably because it sounds better. But that's not its meaning at all.

Maybe you should reread my post so you can see the difference between the two words and the reason why they are not synonyms? Being killed and dying are two fundamentally different things.

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

Please explain to me how he should have done so in GW1 then? Or even GW2. While we know that he actively feasts on them when he can, he certainly can’t when being sealed in the hall. If he had to actively reach a soul, he would have never woken up, since they don’t just stumble in there. Instead we have King Frozenwind explain:

“Every time a creature in the Underworld dies, the release of life energy adds to Dhuum's vigor. Too many beings are being slain in the Underworld. Dhuum grows both strong and restless.”

A discussion is rather pointless if you are presented with facts, with sources, and deny them. Desmina outright states that Dhuum feasts on souls when he was sealed within the Hall of Judgment. King Frozenwind's statement does not counter this.

The fact that he could not have reached them when being chained down does though. If all deaths in the underworld, regardless of where they happen, help Dhuum regain strength, this means that Desmina’s phrasing is off while King Frozenwind’s is on point. Its interesting that you claim I deny facts when you seem to ignore the very essence of the points I am making.

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

Do we have proof for this or is that just your personal opinion again? Dhuum and Balthazar seem to behave very differently. Dhuum possessing an armor that is actually left behind after his defeat is not the same as Balthazar creating a real looking Body. And even if you want to count that as the same (I do not), how do you want to know if the same rules apply to all of the other gods? I am still shocked that you really think it would be possible to deduct general rules for all the unknown former gods based on this sample size.

Again, I've presented my evidence for my statements. There are differences, yes, because their situations are different. But where there are differences between A and B, we see B being the same as C. In your example of Dhuum possessing armor, Abaddon's appearance is the same after he survived his body's destruction. This is most notable with seeing the

Abaddon Glider

which is GW2's recreation of his GW1 model (

used during Facing the Truth too

- you can see the shadowy body connecting the arms and head there, but because his model is made transparent, the already transparent body is harder to see).

It would seem that unlike Balthazar, but like Abaddon, Dhuum lost/got rid of his original body at some point.

Basically, as I pointed out with my bullet list, we see Dhuum, Balthazar, Kormir, and Abaddon with several attributes each. All attributes are not shared among all four beings, but any one attribute is shared by at least one other god or former god.

So no, it is not my personal opinion. It is the conclusion reached by observing facts presented through visuals and words throughout the franchise. It's a simple

logic puzzle

.

There is, obviously, room for error. But it is downright false to state we have nothing, which you have been claiming.

I am afraid our views on that differ greatly. Not only do we not know if Dhuum really lost his body (he even changed appearances between GW1 and GW2 for no reason), but we also know that Balthazar looked drastically different when he met a certain Charr in the mists. Balthazar is not known for his great illusions (he needs Lyssas mirror after all), which leaves me thinking that Balthazar did not keep his body intact but instead only reformed it after he got the sword.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Getting back to the Oath of Confidence, here's what we actually know from the story instance.

tl;dr It's not just about keeping secrets. It binds the taker to prevent them from working against Kryta and spilling Shining Blade blood.

---

PC: I'll take the oath, if that's required. But, I can't entrust the aspect to you until I know it won't be misused.Countess Anise: You told him/her about the oath?Exemplar Kerida: Talking about the oath won't kill me. Just telling the secrets. Besides, he/she wouldn't shut up about it.Exemplar Kerida: You're not Shining Blade. We'd never allow you to take the oath.Countess Anise: Actually, I think it's a wonderful idea. I can imagine no more trustworthy—and useful—a person to have on our side.

---

Exemplar Kerida: I just love how much this is going to hurt.PC: It's just an oath of secrecy, right?Exemplar Kerida: (laugh)Countess Anise: There's more to it than promising to keep our secrets. The magic involved requires igniting certain of your emotions.Exemplar Kerida: You could die.PC: What do I have to do? I can't be at [race dependent phrase] beck and call. I have an important mission to complete.Countess Anise: You will be an agent at large. You will have special freedoms, so long as you're not working against Kryta.

---

Exemplar Mehid: With this oath, you will be bound to defend our secrets. You attempt to reveal them on pain of death. Repeat after me.Exemplar Salia: I am bound by the blood spilled from Shining Blade veins.Exemplar Mehid: The secrets of the Shining Blade are mine to safeguard beyond this circle.Exemplar Salia: I will breathe my last breath before I will betray this oath.Exemplar Mehid: It has been vowed, so shall it be! The trusted is now complicit in our mysteries and a protector of the kingdom.Exemplar Mehid: You're an honored agent of the timeless Shining Blade. We may now share our secrets with you, without penalty.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

To me, that definitely ties the PC's hands in a way that can come back to bite. There are all sorts of ways to get around "not telling secrets" and betraying an organization (see for example Isaac Asimov's stories on the three laws of robotics and how "do no harm" can be bypassed via misdirection). So someone in the SB could undermine the organization with the PC powerless to act or to explain the issue to the others in Fate's Razor Dragon's Watch.

I agree that it's unclear if the magical binding is removed on death or if it extends into the mists. I suspect not even the Shining Blade would know.

And finally, in terms of storytelling, I hated it. I think it was uncharacteristic of the PC, who has up to then, always gone out of their way to avoid committing to organizations, and had loyalty only to what is best for Tyria (sometimes focusing on near-term threats without paying attention to the long-term ones). The act of taking an Oath to a racially-specific, regionally-specific group felt uncharacteristic and threw me right out of the story.

It also seemed like fake tension to me: create an impossible situation in which a key character can't reveal a key plot point, then resolve it simplistically by making the PC part of the same organization. To me, it would have been fine to have just skipped the nonsense and had Anise overrule Kerida and reveal the secret.

[Eekasqueak.7850]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:To me, that definitely ties the PC's hands in a way that can come back to bite. There are all sorts of ways to get around "not telling secrets" and betraying an organization (see for example Isaac Asimov's stories on the three laws of robotics and how "do no harm" can be bypassed via misdirection). So someone in the SB could undermine the organization with the PC powerless to act or to explain the issue to the others in Fate's Razor Dragon's Watch.

I agree that it's unclear if the magical binding is removed on death or if it extends into the mists. I suspect not even the Shining Blade would know.

And finally, in terms of storytelling, I hated it. I think it was uncharacteristic of the PC, who has up to then, always gone out of their way to avoid committing to organizations, and had loyalty only to what is best for Tyria (sometimes focusing on near-term threats without paying attention to the long-term ones). The act of taking an Oath to a racially-specific, regionally-specific group felt uncharacteristic and threw me right out of the story.

It also seemed like fake tension to me: create an impossible situation in which a key character can't reveal a key plot point, then resolve it simplistically by making the PC part of the same organization. To me, it would have been fine to have just skipped the nonsense and had Anise overrule Kerida and reveal the secret.

Yeah my Asura making an oath like this felt real silly.

[Nikolai.3648]

@Eekasqueak.7850 said:

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:To me, that definitely ties the PC's hands in a way that can come back to bite. There are all sorts of ways to get around "not telling secrets" and betraying an organization (see for example Isaac Asimov's stories on the three laws of robotics and how "do no harm" can be bypassed via misdirection). So someone in the SB could undermine the organization with the PC powerless to act or to explain the issue to the others in

Fate's Razor

Dragon's Watch.

I agree that it's unclear if the magical binding is removed on death or if it extends into the mists. I suspect not even the Shining Blade would know.

And finally, in terms of storytelling, I hated it. I think it was uncharacteristic of the PC, who has up to then, always gone out of their way to avoid committing to organizations, and had loyalty only to what is best for Tyria (sometimes focusing on near-term threats without paying attention to the long-term ones). The act of taking an Oath to a racially-specific, regionally-specific group felt uncharacteristic and threw me right out of the story.

It also seemed like fake tension to me: create an impossible situation in which a key character can't reveal a key plot point, then resolve it simplistically by making the PC part of the same organization. To me, it would have been fine to have just skipped the nonsense and had Anise overrule Kerida and reveal the secret.

Yeah my Asura making an oath like this felt real silly.

The same goes for my Charr. Even my humans would have a problem with the oath though for reasons already stated by Na. I simply can’t imagine them taking it. If I remember right, this was also the reason why many people disliked that part of the story immensely.

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

@Nikolai.3648 said:Maybe you should reread my post so you can see the difference between the two words and the reason why they are not synonyms? Being killed and dying are two fundamentally different things.

being killed is basically being forced to die tho....

to quote a movie in here (totally trustworthy source in here :P)[A]: This will kill you: ONLY IF I DIE[A]: confusedyes... that's what... killing you means....

[Nikolai.3648]

@Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:Maybe you should reread my post so you can see the difference between the two words and the reason why they are not synonyms? Being killed and dying are two fundamentally different things.

being killed is basically being forced to die tho....

Being killed is being forced to die. But you can die without being killed. Compare it to this: All squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares.

It is not even that I would normally be so upset about this difference, but I dislike it when people claim that I have said something which I did not, even more so if they continue doing it after I remembered them of my exact choice of words.

(I actually still have to see that movie, I should really stop postponing it…)

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Nikolai.3648 said:Maybe you should reread my post so you can see the difference between the two words and the reason why they are not synonyms? Being killed and dying are two fundamentally different things.

You're drastically nitpicking. Besides, if your entire point is "I didn't say immortal because they might die of old age", well sorry to tell you, but they've been called immortal under the false definition of the word meaning "doesn't die to old age". Combining "cannot be killed" with "cannot die naturally" is what immortal actually means.

But honestly, this level of nitpickery is pointless. We both know what we meant, we were talking about the same thing even if our exact vocabulary was not precisely the same. Communication 101 should be at play here.

@Nikolai.3648 said:The fact that he could not have reached them when being chained down does though. If all deaths in the underworld, regardless of where they happen, help Dhuum regain strength, this means that Desmina’s phrasing is off while King Frozenwind’s is on point. Its interesting that you claim I deny facts when you seem to ignore the very essence of the points I am making.

What proof do you have that he could not reach them? I mean, yes, physically he could not, but souls are not physical in the first place. One does not need to physically reach something to influence, and Dhuum's influence spanned the Underworld. Hell, Dhuum was able to alter the mind of a Forgotten who's been stationed in the Realm of Torment for centuries. All while imprisoned within the Hall of Judgment. Yet he cannot pull in non-physical souls from his physical prison?

Desmina's phrasing was not off, you just wish it was.

I mean, he was able to redirect the River of Souls while imprisoned after the events of GW1. So why couldn't he direct individual souls while just a bit weaker?

We are explicitly told that's what happened, so that's what's happened.

@Nikolai.3648 said:I am afraid our views on that differ greatly. Not only do we not know if Dhuum really lost his body (he even changed appearances between GW1 and GW2 for no reason), but we also know that Balthazar looked drastically different when he met a certain Charr in the mists. Balthazar is not known for his great illusions (he needs Lyssas mirror after all), which leaves me thinking that Balthazar did not keep his body intact but instead only reformed it after he got the sword.

The fact Dhuum is spectral is kind of proof that he lost his body, since he had (remnants of) one before in GW1, as you very well point out.

Balthazar didn't look drastically different, unless you mean someone looks drastically different when they wear rags compared to when they wear armor that lights itself on fire. The first time Rytlock met Balthazar was The Sacrifice, where they recognize each other. And we could easily recognize Balthazar's face and beard in the cinematic. Just because Rytlock didn't know the former human god in rags was a former god worshiped almost exclusively by humans in this point of time, doesn't mean that Balthazar's appearance changed.

[norbes.3620]

To give Rytlock credit here, it is not like there were photos of balthasar posted everywere so he would not have been able to recognise some old guy in rags as the god of war. true there are statues and 1 is Close to the black citadel. but well... it is a statue it's not that reliable in the Looks and the Details may be a bit off so i would not Count on that source to say "wow some random old dude in rags an chains Looks maybe with some Imagination somehow perhaps like that statue that i have seen when i was a cub - that MUST be balthasar!"

if we would not have seen balths face in rata novus i would not have been able to tell ist him for sure cuz i did not know what he Looks like. ofcouse i could have guessed from my perspective of the Player cuz the Players knowledge is beyond that of the characters ingame (in most games especlly in mmo)

[Nikolai.3648]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

@Nikolai.3648 said:Maybe you should reread my post so you can see the difference between the two words and the reason why they are not synonyms? Being killed and dying are two fundamentally different things.

You're drastically nitpicking. Besides, if your entire point is "I didn't say immortal because they might die of old age", well sorry to tell you, but they've been called immortal under the false definition of the word meaning "doesn't die to old age". Combining "cannot be killed" with "cannot die naturally" is what immortal actually means.

But honestly, this level of nitpickery is pointless. We both know what we meant, we were talking about the same thing even if our exact vocabulary was not precisely the same. Communication 101 should be at play here.

Seeing that you kept nitpicking on my choice of words after I have made it clear that there is a difference between what I said and what you claimed I did, trying to downplay the difference between the words, I hope you realize the irony of that statement.

@Nikolai.3648 said:The fact that he could not have reached them when being chained down does though. If all deaths in the underworld, regardless of where they happen, help Dhuum regain strength, this means that Desmina’s phrasing is off while King Frozenwind’s is on point. Its interesting that you claim I deny facts when you seem to ignore the very essence of the points I am making.

What proof do you have that he could not reach them? I mean, yes,

physically

he could not, but souls are not physical in the first place. One does not need to physically reach something to influence, and Dhuum's influence spanned the Underworld. Hell, Dhuum was

able to alter the mind of a Forgotten who's been stationed in the Realm of Torment for centuries.

All while imprisoned within the Hall of Judgment. Yet he cannot pull in non-physical souls from his physical prison?

Desmina's phrasing was not off, you just wish it was.

I mean, he was able to redirect the River of Souls while imprisoned after the events of GW1. So why couldn't he direct individual souls while just a bit weaker?

We are explicitly told that's what happened, so that's what's happened.

I thought you did not want to argue semantics? Well, fine. Let me rephrase my statement: Dhuum is the only (former) god that can consume a soul just by a creature dying in his realm. We know that even Abaddon depended on Dhuum to get his hands onto the souls from the soul river, which was in his realm, as we can see in Gate of Pain.

@Nikolai.3648 said:I am afraid our views on that differ greatly. Not only do we not know if Dhuum really lost his body (he even changed appearances between GW1 and GW2 for no reason), but we also know that Balthazar looked drastically different when he met a certain Charr in the mists. Balthazar is not known for his great illusions (he needs Lyssas mirror after all), which leaves me thinking that Balthazar did not keep his body intact but instead only reformed it after he got the sword.

The fact Dhuum is spectral is kind of proof that he lost his body, since he had (remnants of) one before in GW1, as you very well point out.

1.) We don’t know why he looks different in GW2, I would think it was just an effort to make him look better (big fail here imo, but that’s beside the point), since they also changed his way of talking for similar reasons.

2.) Even in GW1 he had a glow shining out from his body, implying that even then he merely used a bunch of bones the same way he uses the armor in GW2.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@Nikolai.3648 said:I thought you did not want to argue semantics? Well, fine. Let me rephrase my statement: Dhuum is the only (former) god that can consume a soul just by a creature dying in his realm. We know that even Abaddon depended on Dhuum to get his hands onto the souls from the soul river, which was in his realm, as we can see in Gate of Pain.

The Underworld is no longer Dhuum's realm, and there's literally nothing that indicates the other gods cannot control souls. Even if they can't, this could simply be the difference in domains, the god of death, even former, having better control of souls than a non-god of death. This does not make Dhuum unique in any of the attributes that I presented, certainly not in the notion of him getting power from souls that has been the origin of this particular discussion - which, as you pointed out, Abaddon did as well.

@Nikolai.3648 said:1.) We don’t know why he looks different in GW2, I would think it was just an effort to make him look better (big fail here imo, but that’s beside the point), since they also changed his way of talking for similar reasons.

2.) Even in GW1 he had a glow shining out from his body, implying that even then he merely used a bunch of bones the same way he uses the armor in GW2.

And? Neither statement counters my points.

[Nikolai.3648]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:The Underworld is no longer Dhuum's realm, and there's literally nothing that indicates the other gods cannot control souls.

They are at no point shown to be able to. I do not take skills that were never shown for granted for the same reason that I won’t accept a Probatio Diabolica when debating.

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:Even if they can't, this could simply be the difference in domains, the god of death, even former, having better control of souls than a non-god of death. This does not make Dhuum unique in any of the attributes that I presented, certainly not in the notion of him getting power from souls that has been the origin of this particular discussion -

My very point was that Dhuum is not comparable to the other Gods in that regard. Which should illustrate an example of why I think that the act of trying to construct a definition from a small sample size is foolish. I guess we already have left this part of the discussion behind us, so I won’t go back there.

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:which, as you pointed out, Abaddon did as well.

Abaddon needed Dhuum´s help to be basically spoon-fed the souls he touched before. Dhuum managed to accumulate power from a creature dying in a realm he had no longer even control over, while being chained down in the Hall of Judgement. These two instances are not comparable.

@Nikolai.3648 said:1.) We don’t know why he looks different in GW2, I would think it was just an effort to make him look better (big fail here imo, but that’s beside the point), since they also changed his way of talking for similar reasons.

2.) Even in GW1 he had a glow shining out from his body, implying that even then he merely used a bunch of bones the same way he uses the armor in GW2.

And? Neither statement counters my points.

If you still think that 3 different types of body point towards one single rule, sure. That did not seem to be the case, however.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@"Nikolai.3648" said:My very point was that Dhuum is not comparable to the other Gods in that regard. Which should illustrate an example of why I think that the act of trying to construct a definition from a small sample size is foolish. I guess we already have left this part of the discussion behind us, so I won’t go back there.

Abaddon needed Dhuum´s help to be basically spoon-fed the souls he touched before. Dhuum managed to accumulate power from a creature dying in a realm he had no longer even control over, while being chained down in the Hall of Judgement. These two instances are not comparable.

Abaddon "needed" Dhuum's help in harvesting the souls. But not in utilizing them. There's a pretty drastic difference.

[Cristalyan.5728]

@Eekasqueak.7850 said:I doubt the oath will come up again... but I've been thinking. If it's supposed to be a to the death type thing did the commander dying then coming back null the whole thing? It'd at least be a way to prevent it from bogging down non human commanders so they're no longer sworn to a human kingdom.

Bellow are some extracts (important in my opinion) from the Oath of Confidence, posted by Illconceived Was Na.9781

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:Getting back to the Oath of Confidence, here's what we actually know from the story instance.

tl;dr It's not just about keeping secrets. It binds the taker to prevent them from working against Kryta and spilling Shining Blade blood.

---

---

Countess Anise: There's more to it than promising to keep our secrets. The magic involved requires igniting certain of your emotions.Exemplar Kerida: You could die.Countess Anise: You will be an agent at large. You will have special freedoms, so long as you're not working against Kryta.

---

Exemplar Salia: I will breathe my last breath before I will betray this oath.Exemplar Mehid: It has been vowed, so shall it be! The trusted is now complicit in our mysteries and a protector of the kingdom.

1. I understand from this that the Oath is a magical binding: "the magic involved requires igniting certain of your emotions". The magic involved is designed to kill you if you betray the oath.
2. The magic can be activated by members of the Blades: "You will have special freedoms, so long as you're not working against Kryta". Taking into account that "working against Kryta" is very subjective and in one's opinion you can be a criminal of the Krytans while for the others you can be a true hero (see Queen Jenna's in the Head of the Snake - some ministers accused her of despotism - even some non enemy ministers - others considered the actions as being the right thing). WHO or WHAT decides when you act against Kryta? The magic? I doubt it. That means that a person decides if you are an enemy or not. This is the reason of: "You will be an agent at large. You will have special freedoms, so long as you're not working against Kryta."
3. The oath bearer is "..... complicit in our mysteries and a protector of the kingdom." Protector of the Kingdom. :# :# I won't play this part of the story with a charr. This statement is enough to send any charr (even the emperor) to the Martial Court.
4. But, for what I understand, in this moment the Commander is free of this oath: "I will breathe my last breath before I will betray this oath.". This already happened. The Commander was dead already. He breathe his last breath once - as in the Oath. My interpretation for this is that in this moment the Commander is free.