Guild Wars 2

Have humanoid form and breasts?

It’s natural.

because you failed to read the lore.

I feel like this can’t be answered without basically repeating the entire Sylvari background. :U

Well then lets get shortly into the “entire” sylvari background. Ronan (a human) found a seed. He took it home, found that everyone was dead (his fellow humans) and on their grave he planted the seed. This seed would under the watchful eyes of Ventari (the centaur) grow into the Pale Tree… rooting in the burial grounds of humans. Now Ventari (still the centaur) affected the Pale Tree with his morals and philosophical views (gets written on that tablet).

So… Yes they are plants… fruits of a tree you could say. But they are rooted in humans.

This is mostly physical though, as sylvari does not quite have the same concepts of gender differences as do we.

I do hope this helped a bit xD

I would add that their shape has been decided by the Pale Tree exactly because they need to interact with other humanoid races.
Surely the Tree could have created giant tomatoes with five eyes and a bunch of tentacles, but probably the other races would have had some problems in getting along with them.

ksabers.9467:

I would add that their shape has been decided by the Pale Tree exactly because they need to interact with other humanoid races.
Surely the Tree could have created giant tomatoes with five eyes and a bunch of tentacles, but probably the other races would have had some problems in getting along with them.

Not me, that’d been more natural. Plus I’d drink more V8.

Yeah the whole humanoid shape thing doesn’t entirely add up with Malyck who looks just like any other sylvari but comes from a different tree. Chances of that tree being burried on a human graveyard as well seems slim.

Jelle.2807:

Yeah the whole humanoid shape thing doesn’t entirely add up with Malyck who looks just like any other sylvari but comes from a different tree. Chances of that tree being burried on a human graveyard as well seems slim.

Agreed. That whole human graveyard idea was only a theory anyway, yet its been around long enough that people think its the truth lol. The truth is, we have NO IDEA why the Sylvari are humanoid in form.

Link:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sylvari

“The Pale Tree took nourishment from that soil, and therefore, the sylvari are predisposed to be shaped in a humanoid manner.”

Taken directly from the wiki, so it is considered Lore. Also, be sure you are not confused in the difference between the meanings of both words ‘Theory’ and ‘Hypothesis’.

Jelle.2807:

Yeah the whole humanoid shape thing doesn’t entirely add up with Malyck who looks just like any other sylvari but comes from a different tree. Chances of that tree being burried on a human graveyard as well seems slim.

What if a human grave is a requirement for a tree to be able to produce sylvari? Because none of the other trees in the world spend their time breeding sylvari…which would suggest special circumstances and I don’t see why one of those can’t be a grave…

Well we don’t know if the trees are connected either. It’s very much in the air but even with Malyck the connection to humans seems to work best so far.

Ramethzero.3785:

Link:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sylvari

“The Pale Tree took nourishment from that soil, and therefore, the sylvari are predisposed to be shaped in a humanoid manner.”

Taken directly from the wiki, so it is considered Lore. Also, be sure you are not confused in the difference between the meanings of both words ‘Theory’ and ‘Hypothesis’.

I can edit the wiki to say that the norn all have a vestigial organ located between the liver and stomach called the squippo that, at one point in time, allowed them to get drunk off of water at will. I could also write up about how this no longer functions to explain why norn drink so much brew now.

Since it’d be on the wiki, would it then be considered canonical and a part of the lore, at least until it’s removed by the wiki team?

No, because wikis aren’t reliable sources of lore regardless of how well-maintained they are. The fact that it’s on the wiki just means that the majority of the wiki’s editors believe it to be relevant and factual enough to present.

Additionally, that line is not on the wiki.

Kerithlan.1659:

Ramethzero.3785:

Link:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sylvari

“The Pale Tree took nourishment from that soil, and therefore, the sylvari are predisposed to be shaped in a humanoid manner.”

Taken directly from the wiki, so it is considered Lore. Also, be sure you are not confused in the difference between the meanings of both words ‘Theory’ and ‘Hypothesis’.

I can edit the wiki to say that the norn all have a vestigial organ located between the liver and stomach called the squippo that, at one point in time, allowed them to get drunk off of water at will. I could also write up about how this no longer functions to explain why norn drink so much brew now.

Since it’d be on the wiki, would it then be considered canonical and a part of the lore, at least until it’s removed by the wiki team?

No, because wikis aren’t reliable sources of lore regardless of how well-maintained they are. The fact that it’s on the wiki just means that the majority of the wiki’s editors believe it to be relevant and factual enough to present.

Additionally, that line is not on the wiki.

If you edited the wiki in a matter of hours they’d send you a email telling you that your information wasn’t contributing, wasn’t cited and was wrong followed by a warning that if you do it again they’ll IP ban you.

Point being, yes you can screw with wiki but wiki can also screw with you.

BabelFish.7234:

Kerithlan.1659:

Ramethzero.3785:

Link:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sylvari

“The Pale Tree took nourishment from that soil, and therefore, the sylvari are predisposed to be shaped in a humanoid manner.”

Taken directly from the wiki, so it is considered Lore. Also, be sure you are not confused in the difference between the meanings of both words ‘Theory’ and ‘Hypothesis’.

I can edit the wiki to say that the norn all have a vestigial organ located between the liver and stomach called the squippo that, at one point in time, allowed them to get drunk off of water at will. I could also write up about how this no longer functions to explain why norn drink so much brew now.

Since it’d be on the wiki, would it then be considered canonical and a part of the lore, at least until it’s removed by the wiki team?

No, because wikis aren’t reliable sources of lore regardless of how well-maintained they are. The fact that it’s on the wiki just means that the majority of the wiki’s editors believe it to be relevant and factual enough to present.

Additionally, that line is not on the wiki.

If you edited the wiki in a matter of hours they’d send you a email telling you that your information wasn’t contributing, wasn’t cited and was wrong followed by a warning that if you do it again they’ll IP ban you.

Point being, yes you can screw with wiki but wiki can also screw with you.

I understand that. Point being that the wiki by its very nature isn’t a reliable source. The primary sources it pulls information are.

A wiki of any variety on any subject is a collective interpretation of information drawn from multiple sources and from multiple people. It’s an accepted standard. That’s it. When there’s primary sources available there’s no need to rely on the collective’s interpretation.

Kerithlan.1659:

BabelFish.7234:

Kerithlan.1659:

Ramethzero.3785:

Link:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sylvari

“The Pale Tree took nourishment from that soil, and therefore, the sylvari are predisposed to be shaped in a humanoid manner.”

Taken directly from the wiki, so it is considered Lore. Also, be sure you are not confused in the difference between the meanings of both words ‘Theory’ and ‘Hypothesis’.

I can edit the wiki to say that the norn all have a vestigial organ located between the liver and stomach called the squippo that, at one point in time, allowed them to get drunk off of water at will. I could also write up about how this no longer functions to explain why norn drink so much brew now.

Since it’d be on the wiki, would it then be considered canonical and a part of the lore, at least until it’s removed by the wiki team?

No, because wikis aren’t reliable sources of lore regardless of how well-maintained they are. The fact that it’s on the wiki just means that the majority of the wiki’s editors believe it to be relevant and factual enough to present.

Additionally, that line is not on the wiki.

If you edited the wiki in a matter of hours they’d send you a email telling you that your information wasn’t contributing, wasn’t cited and was wrong followed by a warning that if you do it again they’ll IP ban you.

Point being, yes you can screw with wiki but wiki can also screw with you.

I understand that. Point being that the wiki by its very nature isn’t a reliable source. The primary sources it pulls information are.

A wiki of any variety on any subject is a collective interpretation of information drawn from multiple sources and from multiple people. It’s an accepted standard. That’s it. When there’s primary sources available there’s no need to rely on the collective’s interpretation.

Wiki information is an extremely reliable source if you understand how wiki’s in general work. It seems that you do not (I am not trying to bash you, I am just saying what I think is the problem). So I will tell you how the wiki works in case you don’t or for anyone who may not know and would like to find out.

In Wiki’s, you will see little numbers or symbols (most of the time, it is numbers) at the end of sentences, paragraphs and/or entire segments. This means that this part of the wiki has been reviewed and the source of the information has been verified and it is good for the public to take as truth. Clicking the number will take you to the bottom of the page where you can see the source. In this case of the Sylvari, you can see that it has been confirmed as truth by the following sources:
– - Ree Soesbee; An ArenaNet employee in charge of continuity and lore.
– - Kristen Perry; An ArenaNet employee that is a character artist.

Now, onto what you were saying. yes, you are correct that anyone can simply edit any wiki page that they feel like and add in some radical information. Though, doing so, it will not have been verified. Because of this, instead of a number giving you the source of the information and the assurance that it can be held as truth, it will simply say [citation needed]. In which case it is obvious that this part of the wiki has not been verified and a valid source for this information can not be found. Therefor, leading it to not being able to be held as truth.

I hope this clears things up

I understand how wiki sourcing works. If you’ve ever used a wiki before then you’ll know that the majority of the time, information from different sources can be contradictory, and that it’s up to the wiki users to determine how best to interpret the varying sources to give the best presentation of the information, which isn’t always the most factual or accurate.

In this case the fact that the wiki sources are in tandem is irrelevant to the wiki’s overall credibility, and is 100% in tandem with my statement that people should use the wiki’s sources rather than the wiki itself if they need a concrete, trustworthy basis with which to form their opinions. A wiki is by its very nature a second-hand source — second-hand sources are always inferior to and less trustworthy than primary sources.

Kerithlan.1659:

I understand how wiki sourcing works. If you’ve ever used a wiki before then you’ll know that the majority of the time, information from different sources can be contradictory, and that it’s up to the wiki users to determine how best to interpret the varying sources to give the best presentation of the information, which isn’t always the most factual or accurate.

In this case the fact that the wiki sources are in tandem is irrelevant to the wiki’s overall credibility, and is 100% in tandem with my statement that people should use the wiki’s sources rather than the wiki itself if they need a concrete, trustworthy basis with which to form their opinions. A wiki is by its very nature a second-hand source — second-hand sources are always inferior to and less trustworthy than primary sources.

/shrug
Sorry, I don’t know what to tell you. At this point it feels like you are just going out of your way to feel that anything wiki tells you, you are going to question. That isn’t wrong and I actually commend you on the hard work and strive for facts.. but just be careful you don’t end up like, or sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

Rainydays.5368:

Kerithlan.1659:

I understand how wiki sourcing works. If you’ve ever used a wiki before then you’ll know that the majority of the time, information from different sources can be contradictory, and that it’s up to the wiki users to determine how best to interpret the varying sources to give the best presentation of the information, which isn’t always the most factual or accurate.

In this case the fact that the wiki sources are in tandem is irrelevant to the wiki’s overall credibility, and is 100% in tandem with my statement that people should use the wiki’s sources rather than the wiki itself if they need a concrete, trustworthy basis with which to form their opinions. A wiki is by its very nature a second-hand source — second-hand sources are always inferior to and less trustworthy than primary sources.

/shrug
Sorry, I don’t know what to tell you. At this point it feels like you are just going out of your way to feel that anything wiki tells you, you are going to question. That isn’t wrong and I actually commend you on the hard work and strive for facts.. but just be careful you don’t end up like, or sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

The reality here is that this has gotten way out of hand. Someone linked to the wiki claiming that there was something posted on it that wasn’t there. I posted to inform them that I didn’t find that line on the wiki and more importantly to remind them that the wiki is a community collaboration for source interpretation, not a source itself.

The point I was making is that the claimed line could have been dropped in there by the person who claimed it was on there, or by someone else at random who thought that such a conclusion could be drawn (incorrectly or not), or so on. The long and short of it is that someone posted to the wiki claiming that it was a source when it both wasn’t a source and wasn’t a reliable one if it was.

I use the wiki all the time, but I’m not going to sit around and hold what it says as gospel or pretend as though it’s always right. Just linking someone to the wiki is meaningless.