Guild Wars 2

In Guild Wars 2, we have straight-up good versus evil: the Dragons seek (or at least are indifferent to) the destruction of all life on Tyria for their own inscrutable purposes. That life is now struggling for survival. As the Sylvari keep telling us, “All things have a right to grow.” That’s the setup.

Zhaitan is not misunderstood, indifferent, or power-mad: he is eeeeevil. You can tell he’s eeeevil because he’s ugly and slimy and made of dead things and glowing green and stuff. His minions are eeeeevil, too, you have only to listen to them say things like “DEATH GOOD!”. I mean that’s EVIL!

In fact, the evil is so eeeeeeevil, I have a hard time taking it seriously. Hear me out. Guild Wars 1 spoilers ahead.

In Guild Wars: Prophecies, there was an interesting facet to the storyline that many people either missed or just ignored: the mursaat, for all that they were murdering innocent people, were in fact saving the world from a still-greater evil. The souls of the humans they sacrificed were used to power the Gate of Komalie, thus barring the Titans from destroying Tyria. The mursaat did, in fact, turn the tide in the Charr invasion of Kryta.

Of course, we destroyed the shield they used to keep out the Titans, thus resulting in the Titan invasion and the genocide of those mursaat that remained.

Were the mursaat wrong in using human souls to prevent the massive devastation (and loss of many more human lives!) the Titans could have caused? Even if they were, does that justify the nearly-complete annihilation of their species perpetrated by humanity (and the Titans) afterward?

In GW: Nightfall, we had to return Palawa Joko to power in the desert in order to save the world from an insane god. We know that he became a major force for chaos and death in Elona. But the choice was simple: risk Elona later, or watch the whole world be destroyed right now.

End GW1 spoilers.

This is moral ambiguity, and it is sorely lacking in the story of Guild Wars 2. Almost every “dark” faction has a believable subtlety to it, generally revolving around personality flaws that suit the species they’re associated with; this already sets them up to be more interesting opponents than the dragon hordes.

• The Inquest takes Asuran arrogance to an extreme, believing they can exploit the power that flows from the dragons and that ethical concerns are secondary to their own pursuit of knowledge.
• The Nightmare Court is infused with hedonistic sensuality and psychopathic sadism, what you might expect from children born into powerful adult bodies.
• Sons of Svanir seem to think the dragon’s rise is inevitable and want to be on the strong side, the winning side. Fits right in with the Norn culture of might-makes-right.
• The Ministry is officious, bureaucratic, corrupt and greedy, epitomizing the all-too-human weakness that allows us to commit atrocities in the burning belief that it is done for the greater good.
• The Flame Legion, of course, echoes the religious mania and bigotry found in our own world.

The dark factions can provide moral ambiguity, real ethical questions, enemies with solid motivations and goals. Any of them are far more interesting and convincing foes than Zhaitan and the Risen are.

Or at least, they could be.

Right now they are mostly portrayed in the same two-dimensional, ham-fisted good vs. evil manner as Zhaitan itself. But with a little work and some clever writing, Arenanet can turn these conflicts into a real, engaging story, where difficult choices are made that leaves the player questioning… did I do the right thing? Did the end justify the means? Did I really join the right side?

A bit of moral ambiguity makes for a more memorable, engaging story. Let’s see some real interesting villains with believable motivations in future content!

A place I feel that presents a real opportunity for this sort of ambiguity is Elona. Those of us who played Nightfall know what our characters had to do to save the world. The Movement of the World has shown us a small facet of the results: the Desolation is now a green land, with abundant water. Joko has built a verdant kingdom in the desert and rules it as a benevolent dictator. He now has a living army in addition to his undead one, and people have been living in his oasis for over a hundred years. These are ordinary people with families and homes, not monsters. Refugees from Vabbi and Kourna live in Joko’s kingdom, too.

Joko isn’t stupid: the happier he keeps his people, the more entrenched he becomes. He has an entire army of undead slaves that he can use to construct almost anything: irrigation systems, viaducts, palaces, roads, housing and more. He has every motivation to make his land as peaceful, beautiful and rich as possible.

Of course, this idyllic kingdom was purchased with the blood of Elona; he had to redirect the river that fed the entire continent to get it, and he kitten sure didn’t do that for altruistic reasons. As a result, it would seem our goal is clear: destroy Joko and restore the Elon to its natural state. But at what cost?

The final battles against Joko and his army would take place not in the oh-so-typical desolate, other-worldly landscapes so typical of the genre. We would fight him in green fields and vibrant orchards, in palaces made colorful and vibrant with fine things, both made by native artisans and plundered from other kingdoms. We would bring war to a true tropical paradise.

We would have to fight in cities filled with 3rd-generation refugees, where the people may not like Joko, but can all agree peaceful life under his is better than the alternatives. Of course, war tends to be bad for civilians; as you pursue Joko in your quest to rid the world of evil, you have become the invading force. Joko taunts you, pointing out that you’re destroying the lives of these innocent people, just as he destroyed so many lives generations before. He would rally his people against, you, and they’d probably follow him! If you wade the tides of blood and defeat him, what is the cost? What have you actually achieved? What of the Elon? Do you destroy the dam, eradicating the oasis of paradise forever and making all those people refugees once again? Or do you acknowledge the world has changed forever and the cities that Joko built deserve to remain? What would you do? What’s the right choice?

What is your story?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the dragons seen as ‘elements of nature’ rather than actual conscious beings?
I understand where you’re coming from, usually (in books that is) when there’s this “zomgsuperdarklord-evil” I’m done with it.
However, the dragons are rather… Not really knowing/caring it seems. Like a kid poking in a nest of ants x’D /weird comparison

I agree on more interesting villains in future content though ^^

I have to agree with this. Even the personal story leaves little room for difficult moral decisions. I’m left feeling like I just read a cheesy story while playing through the Storyline.

I agree. While I don’t want the game to become noir, that not being the design, I would like to have to agonize a -little-. I’ve only found one PS step where I truly regretted the choice I made (happily that was in Beta so I didn’t do it in live). For the rest it all seems like equally viable “good” choices, more a choose-your-own-linear-adventure than a character building exercise.

One minor point: I think the human baddies are the bandits and White Mantle, not the Ministry, though there is a nasty Minister. Certainly they are more analogous to the Inquest and the Sons, etc.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the Personal Story actually allow you to join the “bad guys”. As cool as that would be, it’s pretty clear it would lead to an unworkable situation for an MMORPG. I’m just saying, make the choice that are made by the character a bit more, as Donari says, agonizing. Make it clear, perhaps only after we have made our choice, what the real repercussions of that choice were. Perhaps some NPCs hate us for the choices we made; show us their hatred!

Doing the right thing, making sure you’re on the right side of history isn’t always easy.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here. I’ve found the stories to be generally listless and uninteresting, mostly because they don’t do much to challenge an adult’s reason and morality. They are writ large, in primary colors, making them palatable for children.

I was hoping for so much more, especially from the sylvari. I thought the lore behind the Nightmare Court was utterly fascinating, but when they story lines played out, they felt thin and uninspired. Maybe I had unreasonable expectations based on how much I fell for the lore — expectations that couldn’t possibly be met in an MMO format. Yet it’s still disappointing.

GW1 had a lot of really nasty stuff going on. Some things were actually quite brutal, like the fate of Lady Althea, which still sticks with me even years later. I didn’t find anything in GW2 that I felt was comparable, and certainly not as memorable.

I know the story lines aren’t very inspired, but I think the decision to play them out in kind of a puppet theater format, removed a lot of their potential impact. The visuals of every single story look identical, which makes them hard to tell apart when recalling them. I’m almost positive that cutscenes, like they had in GW1, would have gone a long way towards making each story a bit more memorable, maybe even adding a few more layers of context to them as well. But even then, at best, I’d remember why they were forgettable. The stories are still just too weak to stay with me for very long.

Ambiguity…

Yes, it is lacking. The thing that strikes me about GW2 storyline is its overwhelming emphasis on unity and cooperation, almost to the point of zealotry. I’m not sure if this was simply gameplay spice or done intentionally as a some wierd message to the masses. It’s almost like I could lip-sync the story cinematics halfway through the personal story:

“…etc…etc…we need to unite!”
“…etc…etc…we can’t do this alone!”
“…etc…etc…we can only win if we work together!”

That may be too harsh a criticism, but there really is very little ambiguity in that. GW1 did have that for sure. I mean, I still refuse to roll a Charr because of all that time I spent in pre getting the LDoA title. It’s silly I know, but really can’t see them as anything but brutish animals. :/

As for your examples Verteiron I tend to disagree on both points. The Mursaat may have been holding back the Titans using human souls…but they still demanded from the humans what amounted to enslavement. They demanded absolute loyalty and obediance from humanity, as Saul found out way too late. The Charr may have overrun Kryta without them, but at least they would have died with honor. I would choose death over slavery any day.

As for Joko, I was not as wrapped up in the NF storyline as I was in Proph. Although living in a peace that is provided for by a decidedly evil thing doesn’t make it alright. The Elonians and Kournans who may live under his protection now are only fooling themselves. Security for security’s sake is not enough, and kidding yourself by saying that it’s better than suffering is simply another way of saying “my soul has a price, and Joko has bought it.”

Obsidian: Agreed on the Mursaat, they should have told the humans what was going on and sought a solution that didn’t involve sacrifice. I was just playing devil’s advocate there.

Palawa Joko, though, is (potentially) a much more complex situation. You might claim death preferable to a safe, comfortable life under his rule, but what of the lives of your children? When the river Elon dried up, the crops failed… thousands likely fled south, to Istan. Other could not, and then the Mordant Crescent came, Sunspears who now follow Joko, and they bear a message… come north to the cities of Palawa Joko, where there is food and water in bountiful quantities. Your children are starving, so you accept their offer and travel there.

It is green. It is lush. Your children grow up never knowing the life they left behind. Two generations later and it’s all perfectly normal. It’s the home of your descendants. Perhaps they know Joko is evil, that your land was bought with the blood of innocents, but life is comfortable and safe, which is all most people want.

Now a bunch of adventurers from the North have arrived on the doorstep, telling your children’s great-grandchildren about the atrocities Joko committed 200 years before, and saying they’ll have to leave forever the home their family has lived in for 3 generations… what do you think they will say?

Real-life parallels abound. People, once settled for more than a generation, are not easily removed.

The element of moral ambiguity played a huge role in GW1’s Winds of Change. We’ve seen plenty of excellent believable villains and interesting plot elements before, so I think we’re on a good track. I would agree that so far in GW2, these have kind of been lacking, due to the dragons being solely in pursuit of power and magical objects.

Perhaps instead of the dragons themselves, their minions might present a tactile embodiment of evil/moral ambiguity. Instead of fully corrupted humans, charr, etc, one of the dragons might not have that purely evil insatiable hunger and would instead push things in the direction it wanted them to go.

• The Ministry would be one such place where a simple push could signal the downfall of human civilization.

• The Inquest are already fairly integrated into Asuran society, but what if they stumbled upon a convenient magical artifact that all of sudden made a doomsday device more realistic?

• The Flame Legion wants to regain the power that they’ve lost, and restore religion to the Charr. A brainwashing device? Some kind of power miracle performer to sway the Charr from their current hatred of magic and religion?

• The Nightmare Court want to bring everyone into the fold, and either destroy/turn the Pale Tree. A poisoned water supply perhaps?

• The Sons of Svanir already seem to be enticed by a dragon and its power, so not much would need to be done to push them over the edge. However, giving them more power instead of just corrupting everyone and making them slaves would be a step in the “right” direction.

Through some clever pushing here and there, or conveniently placed objects, etc, the dragons could make everyone destroy themselves. Then they would be able to sweep across the land, pick off the stragglers, and go back to sleep.

Real-life parallels indeed…

The world is bursting with similar situations: Taiwan, Istanbul, Kaliningrad, kittenstan, Basque…pretty much all of the Western Hemisphere…

England’s land-grabs read like a grocery list: India, Gibraltar, Falklands, Hong Kong, Suez, Iraq, Scotland, Northern Ireland…(tear). Some they still have.

And the granddaddy of them all: Israel. These poor peeps were denied their ancestral homeland for 2 millennia. Now that they have it back they consider it justice done. Ask a Palestinian how he/she feels about that.

The question isn’t whether or not it is practical or even fair to leave your home. The question is whether or not it is the right thing to do.

Joko(switching back to fantasy here) is a special case for one important reason: he’s undead and inherently evil. It would be different if he had died and was long gone, but his continued existence is just plain wrong…he needs to die. Really die not just undie or whatever lol. If those living under his unjust, albeit safe, rule don’t see that then they are not only fooling themselves, but are indirect collaborators of his evil reign.

Lolz, is kitten s t a n a bad word???

guess so…I was referring to the country directly west of India. ANet Auto-censoring needs some tweaking lol.

The first four letters of the name of that country are used as an ethnic slur in some English-speaking countries. I would imagine that’s what the censor snagged on.

Oh. 0.0 Thank you for the heads up Szin!

Just to note, Zhai was never actually said to be evil, he is a giant mass of power that is barely more sentient than a spider and relies on instincs, the Death… Good might be like the whole thing with Nurgle in WH40k, spread of his version of delight, since only the, while living, really strong magical risen actually complained about anything, what might have been a sign that he was actually making some twisted paradise for them, what wouldnt be good for the powerhungry and greedy (basic traits of human orrians if ascalonian texts are to be trusted).

Verteiron.8734:

But with a little work and some clever writing, Arenanet can turn these conflicts into a real, engaging story, where difficult choices are made that leaves the player questioning… did I do the right thing? Did the end justify the means? Did I really join the right side?

Please, no. I appreciate that you take the time advocate for your position, but it isn’t really something I want to see in this game at all.

Look at this way. The player is confronted with a choice A,B, or C. Each path does something positive but it also punishes him, someone dies or something. Well, most players don’t want to make anyone die. At least not from something that seemed like an innocent choice. So suddenly you’ve… basically really annoyed them, if not got them to stop playing because every choice had one of those negatives attached.

This is the problem with this “moral ambiguity” in relation to a game. The player has to have an illusion of having a free will similar to what they’d want to have. If faced with a situation in their virtual world where they’re on the hook for every irritating consequence going on, all it really does it make a game that’s too frustrating for most people to play out.

Now, I don’t mind if they make some kind of system like this that allows people to opt out in a fun fashion. But they never do. All the games that put choices and moral quandary in games just heap it on you too much and it gets to be grating.

I don’t even need to be given a choice. I’d just like to see some unfortunate consequences of the things that the story makes us do. In real life, things are not purely good or purely bad. There’s a bit of a mix in everything. I’d like to see more of that in this game, too.

TurtleofPower.5641 I really didnt feel like that at all in GW1. Yet it still had moments where you stopped and thought about what you were doing. Also you seem to be taking the whole consequences thing waaaaay to far. It doesnt have to be a punish player for everything system.

Awesome post, Verteiron! I was indirectly thinking about this as I thought about how seemingly shallow the current situation is in the main story. We have this union of orders fighting the dragons, and a pure good vs. evil scenario is developed. There’s no middle ground that I can see between these two groups. I hope in future installments we’ll be able to see a better fleshing out of the evolving plot that can incorporate a more realistic situation, or rather not everything is painted black and white. I want to see some real Guild conflict within the current order and potential new groups. I want to be able to form my own story and path rather than feel like I have training wheels all the way through guiding me on what is the morally correct road. Choice is everything, and ArenaNet still has the capability to capitalize on it.

I personally spent most of my story mission confused…

Something along the lines of this question:
“But Jeff Grubb is a better writer than this?”

Well said, OP. I couldn’t agree more. This is one of the reasons games written by Obsidian or games like the Witcher 2 are so kitten good.

Alice.8694:

I personally spent most of my story mission confused…

Something along the lines of this question:
“But Jeff Grubb is a better writer than this?”

I think that’s because neither Jeff nor Ree Soesbee were involved in the individual story lines. They created the background lore and the world framework (which is exceptional across the board), but it was a different team or teams who came up with the personal story content. I read that somewhere, but don’t recall where it was. Regardless, it explains why the personal story feels like great potential squandered.

TurtleofPower.5641:

Verteiron.8734:

But with a little work and some clever writing, Arenanet can turn these conflicts into a real, engaging story, where difficult choices are made that leaves the player questioning… did I do the right thing? Did the end justify the means? Did I really join the right side?

Please, no. I appreciate that you take the time advocate for your position, but it isn’t really something I want to see in this game at all.

Look at this way. The player is confronted with a choice A,B, or C. Each path does something positive but it also punishes him, someone dies or something. Well, most players don’t want to make anyone die. At least not from something that seemed like an innocent choice. So suddenly you’ve… basically really annoyed them, if not got them to stop playing because every choice had one of those negatives attached.

This is the problem with this “moral ambiguity” in relation to a game. The player has to have an illusion of having a free will similar to what they’d want to have. If faced with a situation in their virtual world where they’re on the hook for every irritating consequence going on, all it really does it make a game that’s too frustrating for most people to play out.

Now, I don’t mind if they make some kind of system like this that allows people to opt out in a fun fashion. But they never do. All the games that put choices and moral quandary in games just heap it on you too much and it gets to be grating.

You make it sound like every single story element would involve a jarring moral dilemma. To be effective, these types of plot devices need to be used sparingly, like maybe once in every 10 missions. It’s the only way they can maintain any kind of emotional impact. If every story mission required this kind of decision-making, the players would be numb after the first two or three. Which is basically the effect that the stories have now, just for the opposite reason — they have NO emotional impact at all.

“The dark factions can provide moral ambiguity, real ethical questions, enemies with solid motivations and goals. Any of them are far more interesting and convincing foes than Zhaitan and the Risen are.”

They can and do, as you point out. The game seems to have what you’re asking for, it just isn’t the feature of your personal story. I agree, it’d be nice to include in the personal story the types of stories that were told in Winds of Change., but I think I rightfully view the game’s story as being more than just what goes on in your personal story.

While I don’t necessarily expect it, I would love to see more like this in the future of GW2s storyline. Personally I really enjoyed the storyline to date even if it is a bit archetypal black & white. I would definitely love to see more complexity in moral choices, repercussions and overall character depth. There are a few well written characters in GW2 but they’re definitely in the minority.

I think a lot of the issues with the story are addressed here by the OP.

Instead of posting another dissertation on the issues with Guild Wars 2’s story, all I’m going to say is that the main story in every Guild Wars 1 campaign was more memorable than almost the entire Guild Wars 2 story. I feel as though the lack of memorable moments is due to the fact that the team tried far too hard to create complex branching story lines. Instead of having one-on-one conversations with people, I want to be addressed as a team of heroes again, with things said by individual players from time-to-time.

I much prefer quality over quantity, and it is clear that quality ends with the death of loved characters such as Tybalt Leftpaw. Quality is further reduced when Trahearne is suddenly made the hero of the story instead of ourselves.

After ruminating on this and the responses so far, I have come up with a couple of additional things to say.

I understand that Arenanet was probably trying to go for a Lovecraft-style “ancient unspeakable evil” concept with the Dragons. I’m all for it! Ancient unspeakable evils are awesome! But they don’t make for interesting storytelling. Even Lovecraft himself had the same problem; you can see in his later works that he had to give his monsters and otherworldly invaders motivations and reasons for existing, because you can only write “… and then he went mad because ancient unspeakable EVIL” so many times.

Zhaitan, I think, could have been handled better, but it works as a storybook foe this time around. What I am aiming for, and the reason I hope the devs read this, is a different type of foe next time around. It would be nice if, instead of the next Dragon fight just swapping out Green Undead for Purple Branded or Blue IceBrood or Red Destroyers, we could also face some opponents who genuinely believe they’re on the right side of things, instead of just being evil for the sake of evil. Several of the other dragons have groups who will defend them. Jormag has the Sons, Primordus is probably the favorite of the Inquest (after all, it and the Asura have a history). I’m sure Kralky can find someone who loves him.

It even opens up new kinds of story lines… imagine suddenly finding yourself forced to ally with the Inquest, because they feel Kralk is a threat to the power of Primodus and you can’t defeat the big purple guy without their help. Or perhaps, after struggling against them for the entire game, the heads of the Sons of Svanir discover that Jormag neither appreciates nor notices their worship, and that becoming Icebrood is a hellish process. Now some of the Sons want to join you to fight their former master. Do you trust them? Do you have a choice?

There’s no reason why we can’t have Ancient Unspeakable Evils AND interesting, motivated opposition. Colors are so much more interesting than black and white.

Zhaitan: Arah was merely a setback!

Sorry. Channelling my dead horse meme.

I love the nature of some of the “bad guys” in the personal storyline. I enjoy how shades of grey quite often come into play.

Or we could go the Final Fantasy route:
Zhaitan: Now face my TRUE FORM! turns into a pink catboy