We killed the puppet...

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Serophous.9085

Serophous.9085

While we are excited over Scarlet’s death, we are overlooking something that still nags at the back of my mind.

Scarlet saw something in the eternal alchemy, something or someone, and it corrupted her, began to overtake her mind. We saw and heard this in the journal and even over our encounters (the change in tone and voice).

From what we know, the dragons can’t corrupt the Sylvari. So a dragon isn’t responsible for it.

We killed the puppet, but the puppeteer is still out there. They know about the dragons, and how to awaken them. I have a feeling this won’t be the last we see of someone going off the deep end.

Or she was just overloaded with information that she snapped. Who knows?

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Kaz.5430

Kaz.5430

The idea that dragons can’t corrupt Sylvari is based around the dragons that were known prior to these events not this new Dragon.

Also I’m not sure that it necessarily that they ‘cant’ corrupt them, it might just be that they have not corrupted any at this time. I’m not aware of any scene where an Elder Dragon actually tries and then fails to corrupt one. I think we’ve just assumed this.

Even if Primordus, Jormag, Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik can’t corrupt Sylvari, that doesn’t mean that the same is true for Mordremoth who would have far more chance of corrupting plants. There is also still a theory that has yet to be shown untrue that the Sylvari are already minions but are being sheilded.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that there’s some ‘other’ other force out there.

Monarchy - 15 year old browser-based game and roleplay community
Table Warfare Miniatures - Armatures, Custom Miniatures, Moulds etc.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Windu The Forbidden One.6045

Windu The Forbidden One.6045

From what we know, the dragons can’t corrupt the Sylvari. So a dragon isn’t responsible for it.

Jormag, Kralkatorrik, Primordus and Zhaitan are unable to Corrupt Sylvari.
Doesn’t mean the Deep Sea Dragon and Mordremoth can’t corrupt them as well.
Not until we have proof of this.

Dear A-net: Please nerf rock. Paper is fine
~Sincerely, Scissors

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Mad Queen Malafide.7512

Mad Queen Malafide.7512

Scarlet saw something in the eternal alchemy

She didn’t look in the Eternal Alchemy. She THOUGHT she did. But she didn’t.

From what we know, the dragons can’t corrupt the Sylvari. So a dragon isn’t responsible for it.

With the arrival of a new Elder Dragon, new ways of corruption might be possible. As far as we know, current Elder Dragons cannot corrupt Sylvari, because when they corrupt, it is a physical transformation. Since the Sylvari are basically plants, it kills them. But what if the corruption is not physical, but mental?

“Madness is just another way to view reality”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-On3Ya0_4Y)

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

The idea that dragons can’t corrupt Sylvari is based around the dragons that were known prior to these events not this new Dragon.

Also I’m not sure that it necessarily that they ‘cant’ corrupt them, it might just be that they have not corrupted any at this time. I’m not aware of any scene where an Elder Dragon actually tries and then fails to corrupt one. I think we’ve just assumed this.

Even if Primordus, Jormag, Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik can’t corrupt Sylvari, that doesn’t mean that the same is true for Mordremoth who would have far more chance of corrupting plants. There is also still a theory that has yet to be shown untrue that the Sylvari are already minions but are being sheilded.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that there’s some ‘other’ other force out there.

Only because sensationalism always spreads further and faster than rational refutation, and that you can never prove a negative. The thinking behind it was legit when it was made before the game was released, but evidence has come to light since that have put holes in the reasoning behind it that you could drive three trucks through.

It’s still possible, since unless we get a full account of sylvari evolution back to a period where it’s not possible that dragons could have influenced them the possibility of draconic interference in their evolution is always possible – but, coming back to that statement earlier about never being able to prove a negative, it’s possible that humans are dragon minions created five cycles ago and sent out into the multiverse as sleeper agents, with every human having a switch in their brain that will turn them into a minion should the dragon or one of its champions feel the need. Highly unlikely, I know, but can you prove it’s wrong? The sylvari dragon minions theory has the traction it does because people think it’s cool and edgy, and are either ignorant of the holes in the logic behind it or don’t care.

Going back to the topic, though, all that we really know for sure is that so far none of the other dragons have successfully converted a sylvari (and I’d be willing to bet that Zhaitan at least has tried). Since we don’t know how sylvari got their immunity*, though, we can’t know for sure that there’s no way around it (corrupting the Dream, say).

*It’s not because they’re already minions. We see in CoE examples of creatures that have been corrupted by the energies of multiple dragons, demonstrating that being a minion of one dragon does not protect you from corruption by another.

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.

(edited by draxynnic.3719)

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Kaz.5430

Kaz.5430

draxxynic, as you’ve decided to divert the thread by claiming I’m being sensationalist I fear I must also divert the thread in order to reply to you.

The idea that the Sylvari nightmare was supposed to be a corrupting force that creates minions for Mordremoth, but was altered in some way by the Pale Tree to create the dream instead, is still a perfectly rational theory, which make a LOT of sense.

Where is this huge amount of evidence that blows the theory out of the water, that you so conveniently decide to just leave out of your post? If anything the recent storyline with Scarlet has added to weight to the theory not diminished it.

If anyone is being sensationalist here it’s you with your big claims of being correct without providing any evidence to back the assertion up, I am at least willing to refer to my speculation as an unproven theory, and not irrefutable fact.

I’m quite happy to be proven wrong in my belief that the Sylvari-as-minion theory is correct. But not based on a ‘because I say so’ argument. If you have masses of irrefutable evidence that the theory is incorrect – as you claim – then provide it.

Monarchy - 15 year old browser-based game and roleplay community
Table Warfare Miniatures - Armatures, Custom Miniatures, Moulds etc.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

It always annoyed me how people use CoE to point out that dragon minions can be corrupted by another dragon, while ignoring the fact that those combinations are not a natural occurrence, and we’ve yet to see a natural cross breed of dragon minions. But that’s just my viewpoint on it.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Rainbow Sprint.3215

Rainbow Sprint.3215

The nightmare court break a sylvari’s mind all the time. Scarlet had a voice in her head for possibly years. Maybe the dragon couldn’t physically corrupt Scarlet but having the mental influence of an elder dragon in your head might just make you go insane and we already know sylvari arn’t immune to that.

Even if it was something else, the point about it knowing how to wake a dragon is useless as all the dragons are now awake, minus the one that’s dead.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Narcemus.1348

Narcemus.1348

I personally enjoy the notion that Mordremoth wasn’t the voice inside of Scarlet’s head. It adds more intrigue to Tyria, IMO, but honestly I’ll be okay with the story either way.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

The dragons consume magic. Scarlet’s efforts were focused on locating and tapping into/releasing the magic of the leylines, awakening an Elder Dragon in the process (thus hastening the “consumption” of magic in the world).

Who do we know from GW1 that weren’t particulary fond of others having access to magic and would possess the power to manipulate Scarlet? Perhaps the Unseen Ones stir yet again.

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

Where is this huge amount of evidence that blows the theory out of the water, that you so conveniently decide to just leave out of your post? If anything the recent storyline with Scarlet has added to weight to the theory not diminished it.

I didn’t type it out there because it was diverting the thread and I didn’t want to repeat stuff that I’ve said at least a dozen times now. Since you insist, though, after the last time I did so I saved a copy. Copy pasta deploy!

The main pillars of the theory which, it is important to point out, grew before the game was released, are the following:

1) Sylvari are immune to dragon corruption. One explanation for why they might be immune to dragon corruption would be because they are already corrupted (ie are dragon minions).

2) In Edge of Destiny, Glint claims that she broke free of Kralkatorrik’s control through a personal epiphany. Thus, the reason why the sylvari might be good despite the Pale Tree having been intended as a dragon champion is that Ventari’s philosophies and the Tablet brought about a similar epiphany in the Pale Tree.

3) The Nightmare claims that they are closer to the true nature of sylvari, and the Tablet has fundamentally altered sylvari nature – further reinforcing point 2, while providing evidence that the sylvari, like dragon minions, are by nature nasty, omnicidal pieces of work.

4) I think at this time it was known that there was a plant dragon in the sylvari tutorial, and theorised that this did not represent Zhaitan as believed by the characters, but something darker inherent in sylvari nature.

At the time the theory was presented, this was a solid chain of logic. Now, plenty of theories have been proposed that had solid chains of logic that later proved to be false, but one could see, sensationalist as it was, how it could have been true.

However, discoveries since the game released have torpedoed each of these pillars:

1) We see in CoE that being corrupted by one dragon provides no protection against being corrupted by draconic energy from another. Thus, sylvari resistance to corruption is not due to already being corrupted, but some other cause (for one possibility, see below) is needed to explain this.

2) We learned in Arah that Glint did not simply ‘choose’ to shift loyalties. She may or may not have been aware that there was more involved in her change of heart (although given her powers and role, I’m pretty certain she did). Dragon minions, even the most important champions, simply do not have enough free will to contemplate betraying their dragon. Powerful forgotten magic was employed to return that free will to her, magic that was almost certainly not included in a stone tablet carved by a centaur, however enlightened. However, going back to pillar 1, this also shows that while being a dragon minion already does not prevent dragon corruption, there are magics in the world independent of the dragons that do.

3) In one of the sylvari personal story possibilities, we meet a sylvari (Malyck) who turns out to have been born from a different Tree and thus has no connection to the Tablet whatsoever. His overall behaviour and moral structure is… well, pretty close to human, actually. He’s a bit more ruthless than most Dream sylvari, but he shows loyalty to those who befriend him and compassion to the weak and vulnerable.

4) This one has not been debunked per se, but there are plenty of other explanations – the canonical in-game explanation is that it represents Zhaitan (whom sylvari PCs have a Wyld Hunt to slay), and while that may be false, it could simply represent that there is some influence from Mordremoth in the Nightmare without meaning that the sylvari race and the Dream as a whole are spawn of Mordremoth that were somehow (mostly) cleansed.

So there’s your debunking. Now, it has gained a bit more reinforcement recently on pillar 4 with the implication that Scarlet has been manipulated by Mordremoth through the Nightmare – however, that is following a path of logic that can diverge off to other conclusions at multiple points. Pillars 1 through 3, though, are all but completely demolished.

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Becka Williams.4978

Becka Williams.4978

Yeah, but they showed that the personal story doesn’t mean jack, by never referring to the infinity ball at all when talking about the steam mechs. So many story possibilities…and we get 15 months of Scarlet.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Narcemus.1348

Narcemus.1348

She never controlled the infinity ball, from my reckoning. The explanation that ArenaNet seemed to give for this was Scarlet having reverse-engineered the Steam Creatures. AKA, taken control of them, some of them, after they came to this side from wherever it is they arrived from.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Rainbow Sprint.3215

Rainbow Sprint.3215

The steam creatures are aggressive, she didn’t necessarily need to control them, just send them and they’ll attack anyway.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: FenrirSlakt.3692

FenrirSlakt.3692

It always annoyed me how people use CoE to point out that dragon minions can be corrupted by another dragon, while ignoring the fact that those combinations are not a natural occurrence, and we’ve yet to see a natural cross breed of dragon minions. But that’s just my viewpoint on it.

CoE is used as an example because it shows that multiple types of random corruption can plague a single body, even if artificially induced. This argument is far more convincing than saying that one type of dragon corruption protects you from another just because we haven’t seen it happen naturally.

An argument that uses tangible evidence as proof will always be stronger than an argument that uses its absence in the same manner.

Edited the image to avoid derailing the topic further.

Edit: Removed some redundancy.

Attachments:

(edited by FenrirSlakt.3692)

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

Pretty much. CoE shows that being corrupted by energy from one dragon doesn’t provide blanket protection from further corruption.

Yes, you can argue that it’s an artificial circumstance and that it wouldn’t happen ‘naturally’, but at that point you’re not basing your theory on the evidence (as was the case when the theory was first presented) but trying to defend the theory against the evidence, and that’s not how good science is done.

However, to present a litmus test: If the multiple-corruptions-one-body observations in CoE represent artificial circumstances, then it should also be possible for those same artificial circumstances to result in the corruption of a sylvari.

So far, as far as I know, there are no examples of the Inquest having successfully corrupted a sylvari by the same means. And I’m sure they’ve tried.

(I say ‘by the same means’ to allow for the possibility that Scarlet was corrupted rather than simply mentally influenced. However, the existence of the mental block implies that even there there was some deeper protection than a case of ‘sorry, this being has already been claimed by another dragon’.)

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Rainbow Sprint.3215

Rainbow Sprint.3215

Pretty much. CoE shows that being corrupted by energy from one dragon doesn’t provide blanket protection from further corruption.

Yes, you can argue that it’s an artificial circumstance and that it wouldn’t happen ‘naturally’, but at that point you’re not basing your theory on the evidence (as was the case when the theory was first presented) but trying to defend the theory against the evidence, and that’s not how good science is done.

However, to present a litmus test: If the multiple-corruptions-one-body observations in CoE represent artificial circumstances, then it should also be possible for those same artificial circumstances to result in the corruption of a sylvari.

So far, as far as I know, there are no examples of the Inquest having successfully corrupted a sylvari by the same means. And I’m sure they’ve tried.

(I say ‘by the same means’ to allow for the possibility that Scarlet was corrupted rather than simply mentally influenced. However, the existence of the mental block implies that even there there was some deeper protection than a case of ‘sorry, this being has already been claimed by another dragon’.)

We obviously need to lock a few destroyers, icebrood, risen, and branded in a room and see what happens.

Actually though you know what would solve this easily? The sanguinary blade. No one could argue cutting a branded mob with that. Though that’d be interesting for a LS once, the priory tests that and we suddenly get a race of supercharged dragon minions.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Windu The Forbidden One.6045

Windu The Forbidden One.6045

It always annoyed me how people use CoE to point out that dragon minions can be corrupted by another dragon, while ignoring the fact that those combinations are not a natural occurrence, and we’ve yet to see a natural cross breed of dragon minions. But that’s just my viewpoint on it.

CoE is used as an example because it shows that multiple types of random corruption can plague a single body. This argument is far more convincing than saying that one type of dragon corruption protects you from another just because we haven’t seen it happen naturally.

An argument that uses tangible evidence as proof will always be stronger than an argument that uses the absence of evidence as proof.

Edited the image to avoid derailing the topic further.

^this!

Dear A-net: Please nerf rock. Paper is fine
~Sincerely, Scissors

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

Well, I decided to do a quick look through of CoE since I haven’t been in it in a while, and it unless I missed some stuff, I think only two monsters in the dungeon could be considered a hybrid of dragon corruption. Kudu’s Monster, which looks more like a risen giant, and not necessarily a hybrid. And Subject Alpha, which can be considered unstable. So with Subject Alpha as our only known hybrid of dragon corruption, it could be that other attempts have ended with the subject being destroyed. If there are more examples then Subject Alpha that I missed then I’m sorry for skipping them.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: FenrirSlakt.3692

FenrirSlakt.3692

Well, I decided to do a quick look through of CoE since I haven’t been in it in a while, and it unless I missed some stuff, I think only two monsters in the dungeon could be considered a hybrid of dragon corruption. Kudu’s Monster, which looks more like a risen giant, and not necessarily a hybrid. And Subject Alpha, which can be considered unstable. So with Subject Alpha as our only known hybrid of dragon corruption, it could be that other attempts have ended with the subject being destroyed. If there are more examples then Subject Alpha that I missed then I’m sorry for skipping them.

Which demonstrates that it’s possible. Perhaps not something easy to reproduce, but it’s possible.
Also, why would Alpha be considered unstable?

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

I always though of the Alpha Essence he spawns during his third fight on each path as essentially him falling apart and trying to recombine, which made me think of him as unstable. But while it proves its possible, it also shows that making a hybrid of dragon corruption may not be possible for dragons to do, which could explain their resistance to being corrupted.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

I’m pretty sure Kudu’s Monster is specifically called out as being the result of multiple corruptions. Probably used a Risen Giant as the starting point, but from what I recall (it’s been a while) it uses attacks that come from other dragons.

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

Not sure on Kudu’s Monster, though apparently it counts towards giant slayer, but not risen or other dragon minions, and it’s Subject Alpha that used dragon named attacks.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: FenrirSlakt.3692

FenrirSlakt.3692

it also shows that making a hybrid of dragon corruption may not be possible for dragons to do, which could explain their resistance to being corrupted.

But from where are you getting this? So far I don’t think that we’ve seen the dragons interact with each other; not to mention that they may or may not be hostile towards one another.
If it is demonstrated by fact that dragon corruption from one ED makes you resistant or immune to another’s, then by all means will I stand corrected, but until then, I think that it is more prudent to adhere to the facts.

Now, it would be somewhat explain why Sylvari can’t become Risen and simply die if overly exposed to Zhaitan’s corruption, but there’s a whole lot of things we still don’t know about them.

I’m pretty sure Kudu’s Monster is specifically called out as being the result of multiple corruptions.

This is the exact dialogue from CoE Story Mode.

Encountering Kudu (cinematic):

Kudu: You’re lucky to have made it this far, Zojja.
Logan Thackeray: Look at his face! He’s been corrupted by the dragon energies.
Zojja: It’s an improvement.
Kudu: Enlightenment always comes at a price. Now you must pay for what you’ve learned.

After defeating Kudu:

Kudu: I may perish, but my creation will destroy you all!
Kudu: Behold my greatest work – the power of the dragons, invested in a creature under my control!

(edited by FenrirSlakt.3692)

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

About dragon hostility to each another, the wiki says "Similarly, Elder Dragons appear to be hostile to each other, as their minions will fight another dragon’s minions just as they would fight any living creature. "

And from where I’m getting that, is from the fact that CoE can be considered an exception to the rules of how dragons work with their corruption. We generally have an idea of how Zhaitan, Kralkatorik, and Jormag corrupt living creatures into being their minions, while Primordius creates his own minions from rock and fire. The inquest would have to find an artificial way to pass corruption from one creature to another, or just put a living test subject in a room and see what the minion does.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Konig Des Todes.2086

Konig Des Todes.2086

I’m pretty sure Kudu’s Monster is specifically called out as being the result of multiple corruptions. Probably used a Risen Giant as the starting point, but from what I recall (it’s been a while) it uses attacks that come from other dragons.

I specifically recall risen, icebrood, and branded themed skills. I don’t know if they’re named though. I don’t recall any plant/earth themed skills, and it’s been a while so I’m not sure on fire but I’m pretty sure there’s destroyer themed skills.

@KrisHighwind: The hostility between Elder Dragons themselves isn’t known. All we know is that if dragon minions cross paths, they will fight each other. But most dragon minions are mindless too (or close to). We also know that the Elder Dragons really don’t give a kitten what their minions do, like if they kill each other or something of the like. They only starts caring when their champions start dying.

Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.

(edited by Konig Des Todes.2086)

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

Where does it say/show that the dragons don’t care about the actions of their minions? Also I thought that minions were given the will of their masters, so if they show hostility to different minions, it would make sense that it comes from the dragons hostility to each other.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: FenrirSlakt.3692

FenrirSlakt.3692

Where does it say/show that the dragons don’t care about the actions of their minions? Also I thought that minions were given the will of their masters, so if they show hostility to different minions, it would make sense that it comes from the dragons hostility to each other.

Oh, no. You don’t argue with Konig about lore. Konig is this forum’s loremaster.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

I was just interested in where it actually said that >>

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Mickey Frogeater.1470

Mickey Frogeater.1470

Where does it say/show that the dragons don’t care about the actions of their minions? Also I thought that minions were given the will of their masters, so if they show hostility to different minions, it would make sense that it comes from the dragons hostility to each other.

Oh, no. You don’t argue with Konig about lore. Konig is this forum’s loremaster.

Is ArenaNet permitted to argue with Koing?
What would Koing do if ArenaNet decided to prove him wrong and bragged about it in an interview?

Since when do we see anyone other than ArenaNet themselves as Loremaster?

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Kaz.5430

Kaz.5430

I see that since my last visit to this thread it’s diverged to talk about corruption and immunity.

However this entire discussion doesn’t really have an relevance to whether or not Sylvari were created to be minions of Mordremoth, it just covers a single component of someone’s large complex theory.

If the Sylvari were intended as minions then this is what would be referred to as a plot twist. When you write a story you don’t provide huge amounts of information to give away a future plot twist, because then it’s not a plot twist. You do sometimes leave a few little hints that, if noticed, someone might predict the twist.

Someone (or some people) has seen these little hints, and it led them to an idea. They then went searching for other evidence to try and support the idea. The entire ‘debunking’ that’s going on is debunking the ‘other’ evidence, not the theory itself. It is possible to arrive at a correct assumption, even if the route you take to get there is totally wrong.

As it’s a plot twist, only time can deubunk the theory itself, and luckily it would seem that the storyline is going to head down the route required to prove or disprove the idea.

This is how I see it.

The pale trees are minor dragons linked to Mordremoth, much like the dragon in the Sylvari introduction. Basically a dragon with a tree on it’s back.

These dragons give birth to other creatures found in the dream (sylvari, fern hounds, nightmare hounds etc) which are connected to that dragon, which is in turn connected to Mordremoth.

The Pale Tree Sylvari have been born with a memory of the dream/nightmare, because the Pale tree chose for them to have that memory. The Sylvari from the other tree have been born without memory of the dream/nightmare because the dragon/tree they were born from has chosen to not give them that memory.

Probably because the Pale Tree has influenced the dream, and the other tree is still loyal to Mordremoth. It doesn’t want it’s children born with memories of fighting dragons.

The Pale Tree did so, because it is fighting its own connection to Mordremoth, and the dragon you fight in the opening sequence might even be the Pale Tree’s dragon side trying to reassert itself (although it could just as easily be another tree from the dream).

In order to keep it’s children from being influenced my Mordremoth (when he wakes up), the Pale Tree has also created a mental wall to help keep the Sylvari from being easily influenced, and eventually corrupted by Mordremoth when he wakes.

The Pale tree Sylvari are not ‘currently’ minions partly because Mordremoth had not awakened, and therefore was not asserting influence to make them his minions. Now he’s awake, the walls in the Sylvari’s mind will provide protections against his influence. These walls might also be the reason that Sylvari appear to be immune to the corruption of the other Dragons.

The other Sylvari don’t have these walls. However, when we met one, Mordremoth was still asleep and therefore not asserting influence over them. However now that he’s awake, this will change (assuming the theory is correct).

Forgetting about all the extra ideas that have been tagged on, this I would say is the core of the theory, and the part that is most likely to be correct. The rest is just fluff.

It’s going to be very easy to establish if it is correct, but that wont happen through the existing game because it’s a plot twist.

There are three simple things that are extremely likely to happen if the theory is correct, and now the LS is heading towards a Mordremoth arc, they will either occur (proving the theory) or not occur (disproving the theory).

They can only happen through expansion of the map however, so may or may not occur in phase 2 of the LS. It all comes down to how quickly ANet decide to release new maps allowing us to get closer to the other tree and eventually reach it. On reaching the other tree, the theory will be proved or disproved once and for all.

If these three things don’t happen, the theory is wrong.

1. Some Pale tree Sylvari will start to go a bit mad as Mordremoth tries to overcome the walls the Pale Tree created. These won’t be major NPC’s from the base game however, in order to not effect the personal story.

2. When we reach the other tree, the Sylvari will now be under the influence of Mordremoth (due to no walls protecting them). Therefore they will no longer be friendly, and will most likely act more like traditional minions. That doesn’t mean that they have to be mindless though.

3. Mordremoth’s Dragon champion will be a dragon with a tree on it’s back (like the opening instance for Sylvari). Chances are, the champion will be the other tree that we’ve learned about.

Monarchy - 15 year old browser-based game and roleplay community
Table Warfare Miniatures - Armatures, Custom Miniatures, Moulds etc.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Aidan.4602

Aidan.4602

All we have to do is wait. Maybe it wasn’t Mordremoth’s corruption after all. Maybe someone intended to wake him and suddenly Scarlet appeared. Maybe all of this was planned. But I like the idea that there’s someone other than the dragon who was behind all this.

Aidan Vilesight, a Charr engineer – Desolation

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Narcemus.1348

Narcemus.1348

Where does it say/show that the dragons don’t care about the actions of their minions? Also I thought that minions were given the will of their masters, so if they show hostility to different minions, it would make sense that it comes from the dragons hostility to each other.

While most minions have a fanatic devotion to their elder dragon, the elder dragon doesn’t necessarily control the minutia of their day to day lives. If we saw an army of risen charging upon a group of branded I would definitely consider it intent by Zhaitan, but if it’s just one or two risen riling up against a branded that crosses their path I wouldn’t see it as direct hostility between the two.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: FenrirSlakt.3692

FenrirSlakt.3692

Where does it say/show that the dragons don’t care about the actions of their minions? Also I thought that minions were given the will of their masters, so if they show hostility to different minions, it would make sense that it comes from the dragons hostility to each other.

Oh, no. You don’t argue with Konig about lore. Konig is this forum’s loremaster.

Is ArenaNet permitted to argue with Koing?
What would Koing do if ArenaNet decided to prove him wrong and bragged about it in an interview?

Since when do we see anyone other than ArenaNet themselves as Loremaster?

joke /d???k/ n

  • a humorous anecdote
  • something that is said or done for fun; prank
  • a ridiculous or humorous circumstance
  • a person or thing inspiring ridicule or amusement; butt
  • joking apart → seriously: said to recall a discussion to seriousness after there has been joking
  • no joke → something very serious

vb

  • (intransitive) to tell jokes
  • to speak or act facetiously or in fun to make fun of (someone); tease; kid

Etymology: 17th Century: from Latin jocus a jest

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Facepunch.5710

Facepunch.5710

Someone (or some people) has seen these little hints, and it led them to an idea. They then went searching for other evidence to try and support the idea. The entire ‘debunking’ that’s going on is debunking the ‘other’ evidence, not the theory itself. It is possible to arrive at a correct assumption, even if the route you take to get there is totally wrong.

Good post, Kaz. I agree in general and have been a bit irked by the people who claim to have debunked it because what they presently see as the best arguments for the minion theory don’t hold up all that well. I hate to start bringing up logical fallacies, because when the lore-warriors do it, it seems really pretentious, but there’s a pretty well-known one that has to do with straw and men.

I’m not saying the minion theory should be accepted as canon. I’m just saying, as Kaz has said, quit claiming it’s “thoroughly debunked,” we don’t have all the info yet.

Please take your tinfoil hats off and be reasonable. ~ReginaB
This forum is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. ~DevilLordLaser

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: KrisHighwind.6213

KrisHighwind.6213

Where does it say/show that the dragons don’t care about the actions of their minions? Also I thought that minions were given the will of their masters, so if they show hostility to different minions, it would make sense that it comes from the dragons hostility to each other.

While most minions have a fanatic devotion to their elder dragon, the elder dragon doesn’t necessarily control the minutia of their day to day lives. If we saw an army of risen charging upon a group of branded I would definitely consider it intent by Zhaitan, but if it’s just one or two risen riling up against a branded that crosses their path I wouldn’t see it as direct hostility between the two.

If it’s common for minions coming close to each other to get into a fight, I’d think it’s a safe bet to assume it’s direct hostility.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

Kaz: Like I’ve said a few times, it’s impossible to prove a negative. We cannot prove that the sylvari are not dragon minions.

Some posters, though, have been putting it forward as if it was confirmed truth. There are people who say that it’s not just an idea or not just what they think, but that they are “absolutely convinced” that it is so, or even outright saying “the sylvari are dragon minions” with no qualifier – a statement of (supposed) fact that I would not accept unless it came directly and with no room for misinterpretation from an official source.

We cannot prove that it is wrong. We can demonstrate that the evidence for it currently is extremely flimsy, and it certainly does not deserve to be treated as gospel the way that some posters seem to be doing.

With that in mind, kudos to you for presenting it actually as a theory, and (even better) offering predictions based on the theory that may be used to verify it – an important part of the scientific method!

In the spirit of engagement, though, I would offer a couple of refinements:

First, there is no reason a dragon champion intended for the production of minions, as the Pale Trees would be, would have to have any component that resembles a dragon at all. Instead of being dragons with trees on their back, they just need to be simply… trees that produce minions. Not all dragon minions (very few, in fact) are actually draconic in appearance.

Second, champions and minions are still loyal to their dragon while the dragon is sleeping, unless some external factor broke that loyalty. Some external factor must have caused the Pale Tree or an ancestor of the Pale Tree to break free, and the Tablet is not sufficient.

Unfortunately, with these refinements, your predictions do not hold as well – as someone who opposes the theory, I could quite easily find ways to explain away those predictions failing without disproving the theory. However, while it’s probably going to be a long time before the conditions for this prediction come about, I think I can offer at least one alternative prediction:

Prediction: If the sylvari are dragon minions, then at some point before or soon after Mordremoth is destroyed, we will encounter, and probably have to destroy, one or more Pale Trees loyal to Mordremoth, with no evidence that those Pale Trees simply lacked the protection “ours” does and were corrupted after sprouting.

Fulfillment of this condition does not necessarily mean that the sylvari are necessarily (ex-) dragon minions – but I think we can both agree that if we’ve danced on Mordremoth’s corpse and completed any related after-the-victory content (such as the Arah explorables for Zhaitan) without seeing a single Pale Tree loyal to Mordremoth, then we can probably pretty much declare the theory dead.

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Kaz.5430

Kaz.5430

draxy,

I wanted to touch on your two refinements quickly in order to fully respond. But I’d rather not get hung up on adding (or removing) anything from the core components that I see as the base of the theory. These extras are what I previously referred to as ‘fluff’. I agree with you that you cannot disprove the theory, and also that I cannot prove it. At this point in time at least. I very much agree that it should not be taken as confirmed truth, but also think that it should not be presented – like many do – as confirmed false. It’s an unlikely, but feasibly possible theory, and should be referred to as such.

I’m not really sure why you feel that the tablet would not have been sufficient enough a factor to break free. I personally think it would be, but you’re right there could have been another factor. I don’t think that it’s a ‘requirement’ though.

I also agree that the pale tree (as a dragon champion) would not necessarily need to be a dragon. But I chose to believe it based on seeing a dragon-tree in the dream when I was a Sylvari. When in the dream the Sylvari looked the same as they do on Tyria, as did the fern hounds, as did the nightmare hounds. Logically if we agree that the dream is a real place, and that creature in the dream can be ‘born’ into Tyria. Then the tree-dragon must also be a real thing that could have been born to Tyria, and that other tree-dragons could exist that will be born. I think that it would be strange if the theory was proven out to be correct, if we didn’t come up against a tree-dragon, and based on how easy they were to put down in the dream, there’s no way it was an Elder dragon, therfore it’s more likely to be a minor dragon aka a Champion.

I think we can agree to disagree, at least until we get to the other Pale Tree. Although I can foresee others may still proverbially beat the dead horse and argue it to be true. If the story is not actively proven true, or heavily supported by storyline at that time I personally will stop believing it. If all three of my predictions are totally incorrect, the theory will not hold water in my mind.

This being said, the thing I’m interested to know from you, is why you feel that you ‘need’ to try and disprove the theory ahead of time. It seems largely pointless to put so much effort into something that you admit is impossible.

If the storyline IS twisted in this way it would be EPIC. Game news (online and offline) would report it as a huge and brave idea, and it would really make GW2 stand out. IMO it would be a storyline worthy of the GW1 world, with a lot of very interesting lore and storyline avenues.

If the storyline does turn out to be that the Sylvari DO have a minion connection with Mordremoth, will you think “Man this is crap, they’ve ruined the whole game with with twist”? or will you think “Holy crap I was wrong, but I’m glad to be wrong because this is cool”?

Monarchy - 15 year old browser-based game and roleplay community
Table Warfare Miniatures - Armatures, Custom Miniatures, Moulds etc.

(edited by Kaz.5430)

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

I’m not really sure why you feel that the tablet would not have been sufficient enough a factor to break free. I personally think it would be, but you’re right there could have been another factor. I don’t think that it’s a ‘requirement’ though.

Because, simply put, all the indications we’ve been given is that it takes more than that.

Glint’s history still not appearing to be common knowledge, the common wisdom throughout the personal story pretty much right up until near the end of the personal story is that dragon corruption is irreversible. The line must be held because land that is corrupted by the dragons is forever lost, and once you become a minion, the dragon’s hold on your mind is so strong that you’re never coming back. For us players, Glint’s story in Edge of Destiny implied that a sufficiently strong personal revelation could allow a champion to break free, and thus that the Tablet might have encouraged a similar revelation in the Pale Tree…

…but it turned out that, knowingly or otherwise, Glint was leaving out something critical – the Forgotten ritual that granted her the free will to make that choice. Without that ritual, or something like it, dragon minions simply don’t have the free will to choose another path. They are convinced that serving the dragon is the most important calling in life, and are totally incapable of even considering any other option.

It’s been over a century since dragons arose that could corrupt living victims. In that time, there have surely been numerous attempts to turn dragon minions back, whether to bring back a loved one, gather information on the dragons, or simply out of scientific curiosity. After all those decades, the consensus – until Trahearne’s ritual with Caladbolg at the Source of Orr and Illyra’s discovery of the Forgotten ritual – was that reversing dragon corruption was impossible.

If breaking a minion free of the dragon’s hold was as simple as instructing it in a handful of tenets of an inspiring philosophy… then somebody would have discovered that by now.

This being said, the thing I’m interested to know from you, is why you feel that you ‘need’ to try and disprove the theory ahead of time. It seems largely pointless to put so much effort into something that you admit is impossible.

Because I’m not trying to disprove it per se, I’m trying to demonstrate that the theory needs a lot more doubt than it’s been given lately.

First, I’ve been at this for a while – I’ve seen theories that everyone took to be true because they made a lot of sense at the time only to be disproven later – which was when we finally realised that there had been nothing holding up the houses of cards that had been built up all along.

Second, because when one theory becomes as dominant among the audience as this one has become, it stifles out others. People who are convinced in this one are not going to be coming up with their own, or open to discuss alternate theories. What is the point of Joe Tyrian Citizen.1234 presenting his or her own carefully considered theory when everybody “knows” that the sylvari are actually dragon minions, it’s just that ArenaNet hasn’t got to the big reveal yet? Except that it might turn out that what everybody “knows” is wrong, and Joe Tyrian Citizen.1234’s theory that never saw the light of day was wrong all along.

Finally, from a purely subjective viewpoint… I don’t really think it’s actually all that cool. Maybe I’m jaded, but my gut response to the theory can basically be summed up as “So, the faction that’s shown the most determination to fight against the Big Bad actually turns out to have secretly been (former) minions of the Big Bad all alone. Again. Ho-hum. Seriously?

In my personal opinion, it wouldn’t be cool and edgy, but a hamfisted, brute-force attempt to be cool and edgy. The sylvari race has so much potential for mystery and for deeper connections into the lore of the universe that will be squandered if the answer turns out to be just “no, they were actually dragon minions all along but haven’t been acting like them because reasons.”

However, my own subjective response is not a persuasive reason for someone else to believe or not believe something, any more than your equally subjective belief that it would be “huge and brave” is a reason for me to believe it. Evidence is. And at present, the evidence for the theory looks very flimsy when held up to scrutiny – I see more things pointing to it being false than to being true.

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Torvarren.6295

Torvarren.6295

During the story they said that in that chamber she was completely cut off from the outside world, and that whatever was in there with her was with her before she went in.
It also says that it unlocked a hidden part of a psyche buried in her mind.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Amstel Steel.2058

Amstel Steel.2058

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Lord Trejgon.2809

Lord Trejgon.2809

some folks seems to be forgeting genesis of pale tree itself

we should not forget that “The seed which sprouted the Pale Tree was found in a cave containing many others like it, guarded by powerful plant creatures. Over 250 years ago, Ronan, a Shining Blade warrior, took one of these seeds and placed it on the graves of his family, located in what was once Arbor Bay, who were killed by the mursaat. He and the centaur Ventari tended the young tree, and their attitudes and philosophy had significant influence on its nature”

so what about that pale tree was supposed to be a champion but because of being taken from “right place” and it grew up totaly outside of dragon influence, it became similar – but with free will?

by that logic is quite possible that “the other tree” also will not became champion because grew up outside the influence.

lets also not forget abour “harbringer” – Nightmare Court seems to belive that “the one coming out of other tree will bring destruction to the pale tree”
that may be also a huge hint in that case.

“-Shield is meant to be broken!”
“-and on this occasion I keep mine plate armors”
discussion about offensive/deffensive playstyles

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

The significance of the harbinger was that if there was another Pale Tree, the Nightmare Court wouldn’t need to hold back from seeking to destroy the Pale Tree – they could remove the influence of the Tablet by destroying the Tree that was influenced it, and base a new sylvari civilisation around a Tree that is not “contaminated” by the Tablet. The Dark Hunt involved no predictions about the other Tree except that said other Tree had not come in contact with Ventari’s teachings.

Regarding the influence of removing the seed from the cave – there are examples in the personal story of artifacts dating back to the last awakening that are still dangerous to be around. If the seeds in the cave were dragon minion seeds, simply moving one would not even be close to enough to break the resulting sprout from the dragon’s grip.

People are forgetting that dragon corruption is really, really, really hard to reverse. Until close to the end of the personal story it was believed to be completely impossible, and even now only two methods have been found to be successful – Trahearne’s ritual at the Source of Orr with Caladbolg, and the Forgotten ritual at the Altar of Glaust – and both of which needed to be performed at specific sites of magical significance. Once dragon corruption gets its proverbial claws into you, it takes incredibly powerful magic to get it to let go.

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: applecup.3047

applecup.3047

It could be possible that the Forgotten performed their severing ritual on the plant seeds, or whatever produced those seeds, as well, but that prompts the question why they would then just let the seeds lie in a cave somewhere for hundreds/thousands of years. rather than, say. plant one and see if it worked.

[III] Third Legio, Aurora Glade
An Officer and a Gentlewoman

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Konig Des Todes.2086

Konig Des Todes.2086

Where does it say/show that the dragons don’t care about the actions of their minions? Also I thought that minions were given the will of their masters, so if they show hostility to different minions, it would make sense that it comes from the dragons hostility to each other.

An interview with ArenaNet, actually. This one specifically with Jeff Grubb, Ree Soesbee, and Scott McGough. It was stated when asked about female norn “not returning” when going off to face icebrood when men return as icebrood (per the Edge of Destiny novel). Their response was that the Sons of Svanir kill female icebrood and Jormag doesn’t care that “the red ants are killing the black ants.”

“Jormag doesn’t care. Jormag really does not care. It’s as if ants that are going off, the red ants and the black ants, that’s nice. But the Sons of Svanir…”

As to minions being given the “will of their master” – only so much that they become fanatic in serving their master. But even then, the weaker minions are too mindless to strategically go about serving their dragon, and the smarter ones can even put their master in danger or believe they’re trying to free themselves from them (as seen with the Sovereign Eye of Zhaitan and Kellach respectively).

Since when do we see anyone other than ArenaNet themselves as Loremaster

Good question. Honestly, people considered folks like Quintus Antonius a loremaster before anyone at ArenaNet ever called themselves a loremaster. In fact, only one developer has ever called herself or others a loremaster, and that was Angel McCoy. Every other use of the term in the GW community has been referring to the more knowledgeable individuals of the lore community.

If the Sylvari were intended as minions then this is what would be referred to as a plot twist. When you write a story you don’t provide huge amounts of information to give away a future plot twist, because then it’s not a plot twist. You do sometimes leave a few little hints that, if noticed, someone might predict the twist.

While I can see where you’re coming from, the issue is that ArenaNet has provided evidence – not fullproof but evidence nonetheless – against the theory. A plot twist works if you make it seem like something else, not outright give evidence against the twist (in this case, sylvari being dragon minions – but outright stating that they’re here to fight the Elder Dragons and die when a dragon tries to corrupt them).

That’s not a plot twist, that’s retroactive continuity. A plot twist would be a case like Labwan turning out to be a risen, a poorly done one albeit. Sylvari turning out to be dragon minions is more of an asspull (because those “little hints” aren’t really hints since as you said, they’ve been debunked).

The Pale tree Sylvari are not ‘currently’ minions partly because Mordremoth had not awakened, and therefore was not asserting influence to make them his minions. Now he’s awake, the walls in the Sylvari’s mind will provide protections against his influence. These walls might also be the reason that Sylvari appear to be immune to the corruption of the other Dragons.

Svanir. Drakkar. Great Destroyer. EN destroyers.

An Elder Dragon does not need to be awake to assert influence to their minions.

These won’t be major NPC’s from the base game however, in order to not effect the personal story.

Personal Story takes place in the past, this has been officially confirmed, so that wouldn’t matter. Just sayin.

If it’s common for minions coming close to each other to get into a fight, I’d think it’s a safe bet to assume it’s direct hostility.

It isn’t common, as shown by how we never see or hear of it – we only know they’d attack each other from an interview question.

Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.

(edited by Konig Des Todes.2086)

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Konig Des Todes.2086

Konig Des Todes.2086

so what about that pale tree was supposed to be a champion but because of being taken from “right place” and it grew up totaly outside of dragon influence, it became similar – but with free will?

by that logic is quite possible that “the other tree” also will not became champion because grew up outside the influence.

lets also not forget abour “harbringer” – Nightmare Court seems to belive that “the one coming out of other tree will bring destruction to the pale tree”
that may be also a huge hint in that case.

This cannot be because by being created as a dragon minion, unless the forgotten performed their ritual on them like applecup said, it would already have Mordremoth’s influence and corruption even before being planted.

And as said, the harbinger is already explained – his existence proved that the Nightmare Court don’t need to twist the Pale Tree to nightmare, they can just go twist another, less defended, tree.

Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Lord Trejgon.2809

Lord Trejgon.2809

so what about that pale tree was supposed to be a champion but because of being taken from “right place” and it grew up totaly outside of dragon influence, it became similar – but with free will?

by that logic is quite possible that “the other tree” also will not became champion because grew up outside the influence.

lets also not forget abour “harbringer” – Nightmare Court seems to belive that “the one coming out of other tree will bring destruction to the pale tree”
that may be also a huge hint in that case.

This cannot be because by being created as a dragon minion, unless the forgotten performed their ritual on them like applecup said, it would already have Mordremoth’s influence and corruption even before being planted.

And as said, the harbinger is already explained – his existence proved that the Nightmare Court don’t need to twist the Pale Tree to nightmare, they can just go twist another, less defended, tree.

hmm I’m afraid You missed first part of the point (with second – ok I admit I’m not so keen on sylvari part of personal story)

if those seed was just seeds of the treelike creature capable of “growing” sentient beings etc. but this cave was the place where ther were slowly sunken in the mordremoth power (not like making risen out of dead by zhaitan or how Kralkatorrik corrupted stuff – but more in “plant-way” – slow but steadily and effective)
and then taking one – less influenced at this moment of time out of the place when the process was making it may be possible that the overal dragon influence was not enought to make it really his minion.

ofc. Its not fully developped theory just hint of possibility – if we were to discuss sylvari race as “should be minions but something went wrong” race.
I’m not going to defend it with my life or sth just pointing the stuff that imo may be something meaningfull into the debate – but don’t have to.

(but honestly It’d be in my opinion crappy if sylvari were immuninty to ALL dragons influence – lets say I don’t like the concept of “we have 5 races sir. but we will make one of them born to be dragon hunters”. and actually sylvari “immunity” in my opinion is something much simpler than most folks think – its all about being complete plant – Zhaitan has no power – cause you can’t make zombie out of plant – Primordus was never interested in it – also melted rock does not suit well to a PLANT, Jormag is corrupting by greed of power – and lets say silvari at this moment act like children – they want to know the world and are very curious about stuff – and with their approach to the topic its like “-I’ll give you a power!!! -oh what a sweet icylike creature – hello whats your name puppy – why the heck are you ingoring me mortal? I’m elder dragon!!!! – uhm sorry I was saying sth to me?”
also really ice-plant?
Kralkatorrik is proven to have branded plants on his territory – but actually can anyone be sure that those are “crystalised” plants or maybe they are some kind of thingie that evolved out of crystals after everythign around died?
so by this logic if we’ll find “planty-dragon” sylvari will be fully vulnerable to his influence – and then we can elaborate if other races will be vulnerable also

all of this is just my opinion based on what I’ve seen read etc. mostly ingame :P)

“-Shield is meant to be broken!”
“-and on this occasion I keep mine plate armors”
discussion about offensive/deffensive playstyles

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: Konig Des Todes.2086

Konig Des Todes.2086

If they were born then to be slowly corrupted, then they weren’t made by Mordremoth. Ergo, not dragon minions.

Being made by dragon = dragon minion; not being made by dragons, and not corrupted by dragons = not dragon minions

Even if the influence is 10/10 or 1/10 or 0.000000000000001/10, it would fall to being a dragon minion, it would be influenced by it even if fighting against it as seen by the guy who gives Icy Runestones.

What your trying to argue wouldn’t work nonetheless.

Also, Zhaitan can corrupt plants. We see this in Sparkfly Fen. His power isn’t to create zombies, but like all dragons to corrupt. His corruption takes the form of decaying matter (thus undead), and even plants and even soil can decay, and he does this. One such case of plants corrupted by Zhaitan. About sylvari immunity – it’s explicitly stated to act the same to both Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik (and yes, those are indeed branded plants and not crystals growing in the shape of plants). Both of whom can corrupt standard plants, but not sylvari – whom simply die when touched by the dragons’ corruption.

Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.

We killed the puppet...

in Battle for Lion’s Arch - Aftermath

Posted by: draxynnic.3719

draxynnic.3719

It could be possible that the Forgotten performed their severing ritual on the plant seeds, or whatever produced those seeds, as well, but that prompts the question why they would then just let the seeds lie in a cave somewhere for hundreds/thousands of years. rather than, say. plant one and see if it worked.

They may well have done, but it was long enough ago that we don’t recognise the results. There are a lot of things around that are speculated might have been the result of a past generation of Pale Trees whose ancestors used something apart from humans as the basis.

Other than test cases, though – if the sylvari are intended as a weapon against the dragons, keeping a few seeds in stasis until they’re needed makes a lot of sense.

To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.