Guild Wars 2

They look like they came from a common ancestor, and are basically the same in terms of appearance. Would it be possible, according to lore, for a human and a norn to create a child?

I ask for the background of a possible character in a story. Also for science.

They cannot. They also don’t seem to be closely related, as the Norn had been on Tyria since at least the time of Jotun dominance; and the Humans came to Tyria from beyond the Mists not all that long ago.

Similar appearance is most likely the result of convergent evolution.

Nothing specificly says if they can or cannot. I personally like to think that they can… because then I have the perfect way of linking my GW1 elementalist with my GW2 now norn elementalist.
I do guess it is possible that they cannot. But for the sake of my own personal story I want to think they can xD

The humans were little more than grull when they first came to tyria from beyond the mist. Convergent evolution seems to be likely.

They seem, to me, to be too diffrent to produce offspring. beyond a basic human resemblance the diffrences are vast. Norn have superstrength beyond just being big. Norn are giants. The proportions of the male body are drastically diffrent where as the human proportions between male and female are alot less so. Norn are giants, not human.

Meanwhile humans can’t mate with our RL closest genetic cousins, chimps. Tigers and lions produce sterile offspring. Horses and donkeys produce sterile offspring and they seem to be alot closer than norn and Huamn. The other great cats don’t seem to be able to produce offspring. And the great cats are alot closer to each other than human and norn.

Beyond that, there are no lore instances of any interspecies offspring between the playable races.

I remember hearing something from A-net (or a single employee) that cross-fertilization is not possible.

Unfortunately it was a while ago and I forget the source, but it was out there. I’d try and look it up if I wasn’t pretty much on my way to work right now, but maybe someone else will remember or find the source.

It was indeed said by the Anet Loremasters (forgot who or where) that Humans and Norn cannot produce offspring together.

Olaf Olafson and his daughter were certainly willing to try. It’s almost a shame their chosen partners were less keen.

Danikat.8537:

Olaf Olafson and his daughter were certainly willing to try. It’s almost a shame their chosen partners were less keen.

My Elementalist totally went for it. Sure she was a flimsy little human, but she found Olaf incredibly… manly.

We were told in an interview a while back by Jeff Grubb, interviewed by the leader of the RP guild Ashenfold Cartel (the leader being ShadowedSin on forums, semi-active in Guru lore forums) that none of the five major races can procreate.

So no, there are no half-norn half-humans. Not possible in lore.

Embolism.8106:

the Norn had been on Tyria since at least the time of Jotun dominance

According to a jotun who’s wrong in half of his information.

Dustfinger.9510:

The humans were little more than grull when they first came to tyria from beyond the mist.

Firstly, you remember Thruln’s line wrong. He’s talking about when they came to continental Tyria on ships.

Secondly, Thruln’s just outright wrong in that (unless you care to explain how grawl-like creatures, grawl being unable to have long-distant sea voyages even in modern GW2, could build a kingdom in five years after arriving from an unknown off-shore continent via ships, having had an empire for hundreds of years already). Just as he’s wrong about the Six Gods not recognizing humanity until they built kingdoms.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Firstly, you remember Thruln’s line wrong. He’s talking about when they came to continental Tyria on ships.

Right you are.

Secondly, Thruln’s just outright wrong in that (unless you care to explain how grawl-like creatures, grawl being unable to have long-distant sea voyages even in modern GW2, could build a kingdom in five years after arriving from an unknown off-shore continent via ships, having had an empire for hundreds of years already). Just as he’s wrong about the Six Gods not recognizing humanity until they built kingdoms.

he said little better than grawl. so that seems to refer to a degree od reletivity. They could have been savage and undisciplined in their wars/primitive in the way they worship the gods/etc. any number of traits that were less civilized than the Norn and Jotun were at the time.

He also sais the gods took notice when they took the magic from the giants and gave it to the humans. from the jotun perspective, that may be the relevant notice he was speaking of since the gods may well have brought humanity while still not favoring them the way they favored the giants.

so, i wouldn’t say he was wrong sinve he isn’t speaking from a god narrator point of view but from an in character point of view.

His perspective of magic being taken from them is likely wrong and his view of the events of the bloodstone being shattered after Abaddon tampered with it to give magic to all the races. However, magic had been taken long before by the seers, so it seems unlikely to me that the jotun race can fall to such a deformed race (according to the Priory, jotun relics indicate they have become a lot uglier since their fall, seemingly due to inbreeding based on the blog post about them) in 1,300 years. It would be more likely, imo, if this fall happened between the Elder Dragons’ fall and the Six Gods’ arrival.

But him being wrong is irregardless of the perspective he’s speaking from when it comes to the objective truths. There are effectively two kinds of truth: objective truth and subjective truth. Every NPC speaks in subjective truths, as well as any external sources written from an in-universe perspective (read: all of them). The objective truth is gleaned, just like in reality, when comparing all related subjective truths and finding the consistencies.

Right. So just writing an NPC off as “wrong” from speaking from a subjective truth is a fallacy. he is not shown to be subjectivly wrong. His words were never meant to speak about objective truths so can’t be held to the standard of an objective truth.

edit: i know you said it was your opinion but 1300 years is a long time to fall. Humans see deformities from inbreeding within one generation.

Subjective truth is rather irrelevant. It merely shows what the source believes to be the case. One cannot be subjectively wrong, only for others to be subjectively wrong. It’s the same concept as “I don’t have an accent, everyone else does.”

If the source is wrong objectively, then it’s wrong. Simple as that.

By arguing Thruln is not wrong because he believes he is correct, your not making any progress to finding the true situation. Although we’re told humans were in tribes when they arrived on Cantha, continental Tyria, and Elona, they were far higher than grawls are in modern times, given the fact that Orr and the Primeval Dynasty began almost immediately after settling on the continents. We know for a fact that Thruln the Lost is wrong on multiple scales. There may be some truth in his words, but not in all of it – let alone humanity’s societal level when they arrived on continental Tyria, as well as when the Six Gods recognized humanity (a hell of a long time before Thruln’s claim which would place it, subjectively, no later than 100 BE which was 15 years after the scriptures of Dwayna, but more likely around 200 BE, 5 years after they arrived on continental Tyria).

Also keep in mind that Thruln the Lost’s knowledge comes form oral tradition, which is – as known via empirical data – among the, if not the, most easily means to alter knowledge from generation to generation (intentionally or not) as it relies upon memory and direct 1 to 1 speaking and learning – no writings.

Not so. my arguement is not that Thruln is not wrong because he believes he is correct. my arguement is that while he is speaking form a subjective point of view, everything he said is likely correct. He can’t reasonably be expected to adhere to the same ruler we measure objective truth.

I think you are mixing rulers and applying them to the wrong situations. he compared huamns to grawl. By doing this he said humans were far below jotun and close to grawl. you say they are far higher than grawl. both are opinion statements based on relative points of view and rulers with relative units of measure. but what you are doing is taking that reletivity and trying to give it an absolute value. That can’t be done.

That’s why he isn’t wrong. becasue he is only wrong if we judge reletive viewpoints as absolute truths.

i.e.: I can make the statement that “Lightning bugs are little better than kittenroaches.” What I’m saying is that they are both inferior pests. if you point out that lightning bugs are far superior to kittenroaches because they can light up, that is your own ruler of the value of a lightning bug/grawl/primitive human. that doesn’t make either of us wrong in the statement. Only in the opinion that the other can be wrong.

i can also say that I never acknowleged an ant until one bit me. does that mean I never knew about ants? No. it means i neevr took a relative great notice of them. the gods acknowleging humanity seems to refer to a practicle acknowlegment based on what the jotun hold in priority rather than an objective viewpoint of what the gods know. Which is something no Jotun can ever claim to have.

edit: keep in mind, i do acknowlege this conversation started becasue I also took his words as objective truth rather than the relative opinions that they are.

At this point, I’m going to say that we agree to disagree. Because I’m looking at things objctively, and yes I would judge relative knowledge and viewpoints from an objective viewpoint to determine if they are true or false – otherwise we can say everyone is telling the truth and that leads us no where.

However, even if we were to exclude the grawl comment, his claims still has inconsistencies and incorrect information. Some of which I’ve pointed out. And the only aspect he is correct on has been that magic was chaotic when the Elder Dragons were last alive, while there are aspects which we’re given no other indication to measure against (the history of jotun and norn, how norn began to follow the Spirits of the Wild, and the Age of Giants).

Judging relative opinions from an objective viewpoint is flawed. asigning a correct or incorrect lable to an opinion statement is fundimentaly flawed. not everyone is telling the truth but some statements need to be taken in context. When taken in context, truth is often revealed. taking them out of context will usually reveal an objective falsehood. so, using your logic, eevryone will be false and that equally leads us no where. So, i reach the same conclusion, we will have to agree to disagree.

Going back to the OP’s question, what I find most odd is how Olaf and Olrun seemed so sure of the fact that norn and humans could interbreed during Eye of the North. After seeing how large Turai Ossa was, I was convinced that the reason for his immense stature was because he had norn blood in him. It may be that originally the devs intended for Norn and humans to be genetically compatible, but changed their minds during GW2’s development.

You gotta remember, Turai Ossa was around looooooooooooooooooong before Norn were even thought into existence. I mean his form as a Ghostly Hero was around in Guild Wars Prophecies, the norn didn’t appear until two years later.

Yes, but just because the norn weren’t part of Prophecies/Factions/Nightfall didn’t mean they didn’t exist at the time. The devs may have made Turai a giant of a man for any number of reasons, but norn ancestry would have made a neat lore explanation.

Dustfinger.9510:

Judging relative opinions from an objective viewpoint is flawed.

No more than judging relative opinions from the same subjective – or an alternative subjective – viewpoint.

But looking at your full post, it is very obvious that you never once understood what I meant. I never once mentioned taking things out of context – in fact, I explicitly stated that my methodology is taking the viewpoints (and thus the contexts) of multiple views and comparing them. By my logic, not everyone is false – rather, everyone has some falsehood, and similarly everyone has some truth; how much of each varies, but there is no one who is absolutely correct, and no one who is absolutely wrong (because they have the truth of perspective – the sole means of how you judge truthhood from how I understand your posts).

Perhaps I used poor wording to explain what I mean, as I wasn’t explaining my full viewpoint on the matter, but merely just trying to show how Thruln the Lost has some false information presented. Allow me to be more elaborative

Thruln may be correct in the viewpoint where the jotun race viewed the humans as being little better than grawl. This cannot be argued to be true or false given our lack of knowledge on the matter – Thruln the Lost is our sole source on this. However, we know that humans were at that time above where grawl are now.

So he may be true in showing us how jotun viewed humans at the time, however, we know for a fact that he is wrong in how humanity actually was. While I have focused on the latter to prove my point that Thruln the Lost has incorrect information, I have not ignored the former.

Zaxares.5419:

Yes, but just because the norn weren’t part of Prophecies/Factions/Nightfall didn’t mean they didn’t exist at the time. The devs may have made Turai a giant of a man for any number of reasons, but norn ancestry would have made a neat lore explanation.

Turai was tall because his ghost was.

Ghostly Heroes were tall for the same reason Guild Lords from Cantha are giants. So that they can be seen in PvP.

No lore to it. If any lore exists, its probably that he was just a very tall person.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

No more than judging relative opinions from the same subjective – or an alternative subjective – viewpoint.

But looking at your full post, it is very obvious that you never once understood what I meant. I never once mentioned taking things out of context – in fact, I explicitly stated that my methodology is taking the viewpoints (and thus the contexts) of multiple views and comparing them. By my logic, not everyone is false – rather, everyone has some falsehood, and similarly everyone has some truth; how much of each varies, but there is no one who is absolutely correct, and no one who is absolutely wrong (because they have the truth of perspective – the sole means of how you judge truthhood from how I understand your posts).

The means of judging truth is not based on the fact that some think they are right. This is not what I’m saying. i’ll explain better in a bit.

Perhaps I used poor wording to explain what I mean, as I wasn’t explaining my full viewpoint on the matter, but merely just trying to show how Thruln the Lost has some false information presented. Allow me to be more elaborative

Thruln may be correct in the viewpoint where the jotun race viewed the humans as being little better than grawl. This cannot be argued to be true or false given our lack of knowledge on the matter – Thruln the Lost is our sole source on this. However, we know that humans were at that time above where grawl are now.

So Thruln sais humans are better than grawl. But not by much. he may not be wrong because by human standards humans were way (relative unit of measure) better than grawl. But by ancient Jutun standards both are at such a low level that neither could be put in the same league as the ancient races already in power (another relative unit of measure).

So he may be true in showing us how jotun viewed humans at the time, however, we know for a fact that he is wrong in how humanity actually was. While I have focused on the latter to prove my point that Thruln the Lost has incorrect information, I have not ignored the former.

So in this instance correct and incorrect is completly dependant on wich perspective we take. Humans, which you have been taking in this case, or ancient jotun wich he has been. Thurln describes a golden age of the giants that accounts a time when jotun had magic no one can percieve now adays. The earth shakes where ever the giants go because they are so powerful and glorious (paraphrase). So, looking at the grawl, humans seem very diffrent. but looking at the ancient jotun, humans don’ seem all that diffrent from the grawl anymore. This is where your and (previously my) fallacy lie. We’re ascribing an interpetation of intended absolute truth when the perspective is based in one of severl relative perspectives. that’s not him thinking he is right but actually being wrong. that’s him being right becasue he is comparing both grawl and humans to ancient jotun. By those parameters, both human and grawl are closer to each other than we are to the golden age of the ancient races.

so, now I think I know where you are coming from. You’re saying that absolute truth will not change. i agree. In this instance, however, the absolute truth can only be gleaned by taking his words in the only context he could be speaking from. as i said, i also made that same mistake by thinking he was saying humans were tribal and stupid like modern grawl. But that was a fault of my own becasue I was looking at his true words from a modern human perspective rather than an ancient jotun one.

So, that’s all I’m saying. i agree all NPC’s words need to be taken with a grain of salt or atleast not at the face value we try to take them. Becasue they may not be saying what we immediatly think they are. they wil probably be another piece of the puzzle that (in this case) speaks more to ancient jotun culture than the human culture they used as an example. And if we asume he is speaking more to the human culture than that information wil indeed be wrong.