Ritualists?
I don’t know but I miss my RIT
I’d say that the profession just never spread out of Cantha. Keep note that the ritualists in EotN and WiK were either norn – who were just communicating with the Spirits of the Wild, aka were Shamans – and the White Mantle were more or less wiped out (and never really explained how they became ritualist).
Also keep in mind something far more important: skills in GW1 were not always used to show the enemies’ profession in lore. That is to say – charr monks didn’t pray to the Five Gods, despite the lore behind monks being that they got their powers from the gods. Same with dervishes and the like. As such, the assassins, dervishes, ritualists, and paragons seen in Tyria during WiK/EotN were not actually those professions, but they were, visually, akin to those professions to the point where they could be mistaken for the two.
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
I’d say that the profession just never spread out of Cantha. Keep note that the ritualists in EotN and WiK were either norn – who were just communicating with the Spirits of the Wild, aka were Shamans – and the White Mantle were more or less wiped out (and never really explained how they became ritualist).
Also keep in mind something far more important: skills in GW1 were not always used to show the enemies’ profession in lore. That is to say – charr monks didn’t pray to the Five Gods, despite the lore behind monks being that they got their powers from the gods. Same with dervishes and the like. As such, the assassins, dervishes, ritualists, and paragons seen in Tyria during WiK/EotN were not actually those professions, but they were, visually, akin to those professions to the point where they could be mistaken for the two.
Ok, I can buy most of that, but the fact that we the players are also included in the people that are in Tyria etc., and are part of the lore, certainly not all of the rit heroes that came to Tyria were wiped out. Even 250 years passing wouldn’t have wiped all traces of Rits away. Not even a mention here and there? I’m not on board with that.
We cannot say one way or another how much influence the PCs hold on lore. Not until it’s stated. And all we got that attests to that is how GW1 PCs screwed over Temple of the Ages thanks to the adventurers (mostly assassins) “raiding” the Underworld’s treasures.
“All traces” are far from gone. The Necromancer seems to have taken in a bit of ritualist aspects, the whole Spectral skill chain for example along with Shades give a bit of Ritualist flavoring.
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Not to mention the speculation of some of Ritualist preservation magic being mixed in with the guardian. A lot of people will claim that the summoned swords and such in the guardian profession are also an evolution of the ritualist, but I find it a large step going from the GW1 ghostly weapons to the GW2 ones that guardians can summon. Mainly because in GW1 the ghostly weapons that the ritualist would create would merely change aspects of the weapons one of their allies is carrying, instead of creating a full weapon that follows them around. I think it can be a connection still, but it is kind of iffy.
Also keep in mind something far more important: skills in GW1 were not always used to show the enemies’ profession in lore. That is to say – charr monks didn’t pray to the Five Gods, despite the lore behind monks being that they got their powers from the gods. Same with dervishes and the like. As such, the assassins, dervishes, ritualists, and paragons seen in Tyria during WiK/EotN were not actually those professions, but they were, visually, akin to those professions to the point where they could be mistaken for the two.
Humans believed tbat the power of the monks came from the gods (or some did, anyway – the more academic among them had to have realised that monk magic was surely Preservation and no more or less related to the gods than any of the others). Remember that monk magic was the basis for guardians now, though, and belief in the gods is not required for belief in guardians, just belief in something. Charr monks in GW1 were almost certainly the same as human monks, except the faith of human monks was in the gods, while that of charr monks was in the Titans or their warband and legion.
A clearer example is in nonsapient magical creatures such as drakes – for instance, the Krytan river drakes in GW1 are probably the same as the lightning-breathing river drakes rangers can tame in GW2 (ignoring the silliness of some drake types behaving differently as monsters than they do as pets – ANet really should do something about that).
In the case of Ritualists… I’d regard it as a pretty clear-cut case that the profession started to spread outside Cantha, but between 1080AE and the GW2 present it fell out of favour again. Some elements may have been absorbed into professions such as the guardian and necromancer, but on the whole the profession seems to have largely died out.
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.
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 cannot say one way or another how much influence the PCs hold on lore. Not until it’s stated. And all we got that attests to that is how GW1 PCs screwed over Temple of the Ages thanks to the adventurers (mostly assassins) “raiding” the Underworld’s treasures.
“All traces” are far from gone. The Necromancer seems to have taken in a bit of ritualist aspects, the whole Spectral skill chain for example along with Shades give a bit of Ritualist flavoring.
I don’t agree that we don’t know how much influence PC’s had upon lore. PC’s killed Abaddon. PC’s disposed of Shiro twice, although the second time it was mainly one person soloing while the rest stood in the corner and paid him/her later. PC’s killed the Lich and Armageddon Lords. PC’s destroyed the Great Destroyer. End game all called the PC’s hero’s. Savior’s of Elona, etc., etc., etc. PC’s had very big impact on GW lore. There were a heck of a lot of “big bads” PC disposed of. To say that they did not have impact on lore is unequivocally preposterous.
PC’s in lore should be no less exalted than Jora, Rurick, Gwen, Logan, Ritlock, or a host of other lore giants. Most of the time we were solving these so-called heroes’ problems.
Saying that all Derv’s, Rit’s, Assassins, and Paragon’s returned home after things concluded is equally ridiculous. Look at our world, peoples of all kinds, professions, religions, and races are spread across the globe. There are almost no places left on earth where this is not true.
As far as skills go, I can almost accept what you have posted here. What makes it completely hard to accept is that despite 250 years, we still have glass blowers, blacksmiths, cobblers, monks, apothecaries, wood carvers, and others still doing things as they did 250 years ago. I know you probably can come up with professions that have disappeared, but most of them have been replaced by something very similar or a play on a theme. Any person would believe there should be tales of mesmers whose magic was different than they are now. There should be statues of paragons helping save Tyria from far away lands. Paintings of dervishes and ritualists. So even if they are gone (which I find a little outlandish) there should still be ample and obvious evidence of their existence. There is not.
I don’t agree that we don’t know how much influence PC’s had upon lore. PC’s killed Abaddon. PC’s disposed of Shiro twice, although the second time it was mainly one person soloing while the rest stood in the corner and paid him/her later. PC’s killed the Lich and Armageddon Lords. PC’s destroyed the Great Destroyer. End game all called the PC’s hero’s. Savior’s of Elona, etc., etc., etc. PC’s had very big impact on GW lore. There were a heck of a lot of “big bads” PC disposed of. To say that they did not have impact on lore is unequivocally preposterous.
I did not say that those “big bads” weren’t disposed of, nor did I say the player characters held no impact.
What I meant was who killed Khilbron, Shiro, etc.? How many of those PC heroes exist in canon? Who did all those side quests? We don’t know these answers, and you cannot say that millions of human adventurers went and slew Shiro Tagachi at one time, seeing how there was millions of players of the game. Those events happened, but we don’t know by whom? Will canon lore say it was one hero and never mention a name, gender, profession, or nationality? Will canon lore say it was 3 heroes (one per continent), each never given a name, gender, or profession? Or was the PCs just random adventurers and the ones who killed Khilbron and whatnot in canon is Devona and co.? And then, what about the minor villains? Who was it that killed Galrath, Verata, etc.?
That’s what I meant by not knowing the extent of the millions of PCs’ influence on lore. Because we cannot say it was millions of heroes, it’s hard to point out just how many there were, and ArenaNet has left this unexplained for now.
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
(edited by Konig Des Todes.2086)
I did not say that those “big bads” weren’t disposed of, nor did I say the player characters held no impact.
What I meant was who killed Khilbron, Shiro, etc.? How many of those PC heroes exist in canon? Who did all those side quests? We don’t know these answers, and you cannot say that millions of human adventurers went and slew Shiro Tagachi at one time, seeing how there was millions of players of the game. Those events happened, but we don’t know by whom? Will canon lore say it was one hero and never mention a name, gender, profession, or nationality? Will canon lore say it was 3 heroes (one per continent), each never given a name, gender, or profession? Or was the PCs just random adventurers and the ones who killed Khilbron and whatnot in canon is Devona and co.? And then, what about the minor villains? Who was it that killed Galrath, Verata, etc.?
That’s what I meant by not knowing the extent of the millions of PCs’ influence on lore. Because we cannot say it was millions of heroes, it’s hard to point out just how many there were, and ArenaNet has left this unexplained for now.
Well part of what you said proves one of my points. If there were millions of PC’s then a ample percentages of them were Ritualists, Paragons, and Dervishes. So if we are talking millions of these PC’s, blaring evidence of their professions should be seen and they are not.
As far as scope of PC on lore. When you play the game, you play it as if your PC is the one completing the tasks at hand. Of course, my PC or yours isn’t the one ANet would pick as the hero behind all of those deeds, but the game is played as a single person game despite joining up with guildmates etc. If I was the leader of the group that had other PC’s in it, it was my toon, not the others that would be seen in the cut scene.
The story line of each game/expansion purports that a single character emerged as the hero. It doesn’t matter what their race/profession/gender was. Endgame always portrayed the toon of whoever was playing it as the hero of that campaign or expansion. The hero that killed the Undead Lich was one character or Eight if you count others in the group, not millions. So I can say that in lore, there was one character who emerged as the hero in end game content. It doesn’t matter who did side quest or whatever. Still one person would have emerged as the hero of each situation. It doesn’t matter who’s PC it was, the fact was, it was a single PC that got the credit for doing the job.
I am certain the hero of those situations will never be ‘revealed.’ There were to many players and professions to ever do that. I will say that if that hero is ever spoken about it will be something like “A hero emerged and put an end to the Undead Lich.” So yes, I think it is safe to say that PC’s had a huge impact on Lore. Because one and only one of them was the hero of each endgame and side quest.
As for the minor NPC’s. Same situation. When you get back from killing one of the NPC villians, you collect awards and acolades as if you were the one who did it. The NPC reward giver didn’t say, “You are the 359,091st person to kill Verata. Congratulations, here is your reward.” The story again, always has one person doing the deed. One person gets credit. And maybe it was multiples. My toon killed Verata and yours killed Abaddon. Someone else’s toon took Thunderhead Keep. It doesn’t matter, the story line always ends with one person doing the deed. It was never random. We all got to kill the bad guys, but in Lore according to the set up of each story progression it was one person. Doesn’t matter who that person was.
And I agree it could have been a different person for every single side story. Still it was one person according to story line that killed the big bad at the end of each campaign/expansion. One person emerged as the saving hero of _______. So there may be a different one for each campaign and there probably was. Still it was always a PC. So yes, again, PC’s had a large and definitive impact on lore. We know that. It is how the game was structured. In an earlier post you said we don’t know how much impact PC’s had on lore. We do know. A lot.
So back to the OT. Ritualist would have made a much larger impression on Tyrian society than vague similarity in a few abilities of two different professions.
And by the way, I am not knocking your knowledge on lore. You are the best lore guy I have ever seen here or elsewhere. My hat is off to you and I will bow to you in any matters of written lore out there. I am in awe of your knowledge. In matters of societal continuity, speculation, social norms and story structure, however; these ‘lost’ classes and their impacts would be much more evident even in Tyria after 250 years.
Well part of what you said proves one of my points. If there were millions of PC’s then a ample percentages of them were Ritualists, Paragons, and Dervishes. So if we are talking millions of these PC’s, blaring evidence of their professions should be seen and they are not.
There’s two issues with your statement:
There’d be no ritualists, assassins, paragons, or dervishes going to help Tyria during the events of Prophecies, since those events happened before any known adventurers were going to and fro. We do know that there were Sunspears at the Tomb of the Primeval Kings issue, but that’s all. Though some certainly traveled north for Eye of the North, there’s no indication that such individuals would head to Kryta and the like except for War in Kryta which does make mention of mercenaries.
However, the thing is, once more, we have no indication for the number of PCs that are to canon lore. Zero, zip nada. So saying “there were millions of players who played ritualists/assassins/paragons/dervishes in Prophecies content” means absolutely nothing to canon lore until ArenaNet – directly or via the game – makes a show that it does mean something. And all we have on this matter is three things:
- A lot of assassins raided the Underworld – but this holds no ties to continental Tyria.
- A lot of adventurers went into the Mists from Temple of the Ages – but this holds no ties to non-Prophecies professions.
- The Young Heroes of Tyria gives indication (but not proof) of three heroes for the main campaigns – but this only works against you, in that there’d be no ritualist/assassin/paragon/dervishes for Prophecies (so you’d be left with arguing for War in Kryta).
So in the end, you just simply cannot state that there were without a doubt ritualists, etc. in Tyria. You just simply can’t.
-snip bit on PC completing the tasks-
That’s a flawed argument because for me, it’s my PC; for you, its your PC. All PCs are effectively just a varied template for “blank heroes” – the thing is, we have no indication how many said blank heroes are.
I get your argument, but you’re just saying generic bullcrap (excuse the term) to ignore the entire purpose of asking the questions about the PC. It answers nothing in the end, as it’s just your typical developer response that tells you “this is your story.” In the end, you decide what happens in your own fanon with that… but that means there’s no canon for it.
And no canon for the PC means no canon for “ritualists, assassins, paragons, and dervishes went to Tyria!” So long as the PC questions remain unanswered – and you can bet your shiny rear end it will remain so – Anet can easily say “they never went there” as much as they can say “they might never have went there” or “they went there but left” or even “the Order of Whispers censored all information on them, so no one but the descendants of them know that they were in Tyria!” or something even more of an asspull.
So I can say that in lore, there was one character who emerged as the hero in end game content.
No, technically, you cannot. You can say that’s how you perceive it, but you cannot say that’s how it is – since it’s a huge unknown with many possibilities, only ArenaNet can say it.
What can be said is that the henchmen and heroes were present for every mission in which they were available to join the party story-wise. Even if you didn’t bring them along, Koss was with you from start to end except that bit where he got kidnapped – and the bit where he went to save the garden while Melonni went to save her home.
So yes, I think it is safe to say that PC’s had a huge impact on Lore. Because one and only one of them was the hero of each endgame and side quest.
As I said, there’s implication for three heroes, minimum. We got canonical source for this. Thing is, we don’t know how far those three heroes go – just to a certain degree. And its intentionally made so. You’re so certain of yourself, but developers – John Stumme among them – said that it’s intentionally done so that it seems like you’re the hero, but that there were other heroes that went through “similar things” as well.
And in the end, you’re still left unsure how much influence a single hero held on the world, because the guy who killed the Lich Lord maybe, just maybe, may not be the same guy who killed Bonfaaz Burntfur, Galrath, Oberan, and the Eater of Souls – and there’s even more reason to doubt that the same guy killed Shiro Tagachi, Abaddon, and the Great Destroyer.
Even if you had a single character do all that, it doesn’t mean that’s so – that’s the whole problem with multiplayer online western RPGs.
-more in next post; kitten character limit-
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
And I agree it could have been a different person for every single side story. Still it was one person according to story line that killed the big bad at the end of each campaign/expansion.
Turn it to “still it was one group of people according to story line” then you get exactly what I am saying.
That’s the whole issue of the PC. And you have absolutely nothing which implies that any of those “one person”s was a ritualist or dervish in Tyria.
Ritualist would have made a much larger impression on Tyrian society than vague similarity in a few abilities of two different professions.
Not quite so, actually! If you look at how Necromancers acted between Tyria, Elona, and Cantha in GW1, you’d find that necromancers in Cantha were vastly different than those in Tyria and Elona. If you then add in Ritualists into the mix, you’ll find that Tyrian and Elonian necromancers appear like a mix of the two.
In Cantha, necromancers are viewed – in shortest descriptions – as balancers of life and death. Their primary job as necromancers is to keep the death counts “reasonable.” In Tyria and Elona, however, their job is that and a bit more: they’re to guide restless spirits in the world to peace, care for graves, and study the darker side of magic.
It’s the bit on restless spirits which mixes them to be like ritualists, who’s job is to typically communicate and guide spirits to a restful afterlife as well as using them to do other tasks. In other words, Tyrians and Elonians basically combined the Canthan necromancer and ritualist together.
Then slap in the progress necromancers had with adding in spectral skills (plus their Shadow Fiend minion and somewhat their Death Shroud), it seems all the more likely that ritualists have melded into necromancy, though losing much of their uniqueness, within Tyria.
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Well part of what you said proves one of my points. If there were millions of PC’s then a ample percentages of them were Ritualists, Paragons, and Dervishes. So if we are talking millions of these PC’s, blaring evidence of their professions should be seen and they are not.
There’s two issues with your statement:
There’d be no ritualists, assassins, paragons, or dervishes going to help Tyria during the events of Prophecies, since those events happened before any known adventurers were going to and fro. We do know that there were Sunspears at the Tomb of the Primeval Kings issue, but that’s all. Though some certainly traveled north for Eye of the North, there’s no indication that such individuals would head to Kryta and the like except for War in Kryta which does make mention of mercenaries.
You are right that there were none during the Prophecies campaign, I’ll give you that. But by your own admission EOTN and War in Kryta happened after all three campaigns. There is to quote you, “zero, zip nada” proof that the other professions were not there. All classes had access to the HoM, not just Tyria professions. And since War in Kryta made it more than possible for all classes to have played a part it is idiotic to believe that they didn’t. You even admit that Sunspears were in the Tomb of the Primeval Kings and mention of mercenaries in War in Kryta. So let’s just gloss over that so we can say that they weren’t there? Please. And I’m sure that we can also gloss over the fact that the White Mantle and Peacekeepers had Ritualists, Dervishes and Paragons. They probably were not there either. When we were playing against them it was probably all just a dream. So I should just say, “Sure, they didn’t exist at all in Tyria.” They did exist; they are part of lore.
However, the thing is, once more, we have no indication for the number of PCs that are to canon lore. Zero, zip nada. So saying “there were millions of players who played ritualists/assassins/paragons/dervishes in Prophecies content” means absolutely nothing to canon lore until ArenaNet – directly or via the game – makes a show that it does mean something. And all we have on this matter is three things:
- A lot of assassins raided the Underworld – but this holds no ties to continental Tyria.
- A lot of adventurers went into the Mists from Temple of the Ages – but this holds no ties to non-Prophecies professions.
- The Young Heroes of Tyria gives indication (but not proof) of three heroes for the main campaigns – but this only works against you, in that there’d be no ritualist/assassin/paragon/dervishes for Prophecies (so you’d be left with arguing for War in Kryta).
So in the end, you just simply cannot state that there were without a doubt ritualists, etc. in Tyria. You just simply can’t.
Actually I simply can. There are many reasons why.
1. If I made it seem or even if I incorrectly made it seem like there were dervishes, paragons, and ritualists during prophecies I stand corrected. That is not what I meant, however. I meant that there is more than a small amount of evidence that they were in Tyria and more than likely Kryta. There are transports between Kamadan and Kaineng Center dude to Lion’s Arch dude. Were ritualists, dervishes, and paragons forbidden to travel to LA to make your lore line up the way you like it? It’s common sense. There was easy travel between these places. Anet doesn’t have to write it into “canon lore” to make it common sense that those people were in kryta or not. Whether they were PC’s or not. They were there. Accept it.
2. The millions number came from your post, not mine.
3. War in Kryta, see above.
4. EOTN, see above.
5. White Mantle and Peacekeepers had Rits. That is a fact not conjecture. So yes I can say that there were Rits in Tyria. I simply can.
continued…
-snip bit on PC completing the tasks-
That’s a flawed argument because for me, it’s my PC; for you, its your PC. All PCs are effectively just a varied template for “blank heroes” – the thing is, we have no indication how many said blank heroes are.
I get your argument, but you’re just saying generic bullcrap (excuse the term) to ignore the entire purpose of asking the questions about the PC. It answers nothing in the end, as it’s just your typical developer response that tells you “this is your story.” In the end, you decide what happens in your own fanon with that… but that means there’s no canon for it.
Again, it doesn’t matter which PC it was. PC’s were the ones completing the story lines. It doesn’t matter who it was or when it was, each story line, side story, mission, and task were completed by a person or small group, 2 to 8 members depending on the place. 12 members in two cases. Anet has already written the canon lore for all areas and let us play it out. It may have run differently for every toon, but in the end of the story, NO MATTER WHO IT WAS, one person was hailed as the hero of each mission, etc. If you could read a Tyrian history book, it would say that “a hero saved Tyria from the great destroyer”. It would not say, “It is ambiguous as to what happened because we haven’t gotten difinitive clarification on history from a software company.” Anet already wrote the lore. In fact, they took a whole lot of development to make sure that story played out. You are fixated on whose character it was that did the completing when it doesn’t matter. The story line stands and it was a character that completed it.
So it isn’t me giving a line of BC or spouting generic lines. It is you that doesn’t want to acknowledge that the GW1 stories were portrayed by PC characters. I know I have to keep repeating this, but it doesn’t matter who played the character or which profession they were. A character started in pre-searing and killed the Undead lich at the end. A character started in Shing Jae and Killed Shiro. A character started in Chabek Village and went on to kill Abaddon. That is the lore. That is the cannon. You don’t need lore to have common sense.
continued…
And no canon for the PC means no canon for “ritualists, assassins, paragons, and dervishes went to Tyria!” So long as the PC questions remain unanswered – and you can bet your shiny rear end it will remain so – Anet can easily say “they never went there” as much as they can say “they might never have went there” or “they went there but left” or even “the Order of Whispers censored all information on them, so no one but the descendants of them know that they were in Tyria!” or something even more of an asspull.
LOL. I notice that you didn’t say the developers could easily say "They were there and stayed. That would have totally screwed your argument if that were true wouldn’t it?
So I can say that in lore, there was one character who emerged as the hero in end game content.
No, technically, you cannot. You can say that’s how you perceive it, but you cannot say that’s how it is – since it’s a huge unknown with many possibilities, only ArenaNet can say it.
Again, yes I can say it. ArenaNet already wrote the lore but you cannot see the forest fore the trees. The lore was called Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, and Eye of the North. The lore was the game. I would think you would know that. You played them didn’t you?
What can be said is that the henchmen and heroes were present for every mission in which they were available to join the party story-wise. Even if you didn’t bring them along, Koss was with you from start to end except that bit where he got kidnapped – and the bit where he went to save the garden while Melonni went to save her home.
Wrong. I only used Koss when I had to do so. Same with Melonni and others. They were not always there completing all missions. He wasn’t there for several missions. Because I never took him. Just because he was an integral part of the story line, doesn’t mean he was the hero of it.
So yes, I think it is safe to say that PC’s had a huge impact on Lore. Because one and only one of them was the hero of each endgame and side quest.
As I said, there’s implication for three heroes, minimum. We got canonical source for this. Thing is, we don’t know how far those three heroes go – just to a certain degree. And its intentionally made so. You’re so certain of yourself, but developers – John Stumme among them – said that it’s intentionally done so that it seems like you’re the hero, but that there were other heroes that went through “similar things” as well.
I’m not disagreeing with this. Other heroes did go through similar things. But there were still heroes and they had impact on the game.
And in the end, you’re still left unsure how much influence a single hero held on the world, because the guy who killed the Lich Lord maybe, just maybe, may not be the same guy who killed Bonfaaz Burntfur, Galrath, Oberan, and the Eater of Souls – and there’s even more reason to doubt that the same guy killed Shiro Tagachi, Abaddon, and the Great Destroyer.
I have said this repeatedly in my first post, you just were reading what you wanted it to say not what it actually said. I said that there could be a different hero that completed every single task in every expansion/campaign. I said it more than once. I said it again on this post. You are enforcing my argument, not defeating it.
Even if you had a single character do all that, it doesn’t mean that’s so – that’s the whole problem with multiplayer online western RPGs.
I never said it did.
And I agree it could have been a different person for every single side story. Still it was one person according to story line that killed the big bad at the end of each campaign/expansion.
Turn it to “still it was one group of people according to story line” then you get exactly what I am saying.
That’s the whole issue of the PC. And you have absolutely nothing which implies that any of those “one person”s was a ritualist or dervish in Tyria.
I don’t have to. It could have been any profession or none. That doesn’t change the fact that Ritualists were there. Unless again you want to play revisionist history with the White Mantle and Peacekeepers and the Sunspears in the TotPK.
Ritualist would have made a much larger impression on Tyrian society than vague similarity in a few abilities of two different professions.
Not quite so, actually! If you look at how Necromancers acted between Tyria, Elona, and Cantha in GW1, you’d find that necromancers in Cantha were vastly different than those in Tyria and Elona. If you then add in Ritualists into the mix, you’ll find that Tyrian and Elonian necromancers appear like a mix of the two.
In Cantha, necromancers are viewed – in shortest descriptions – as balancers of life and death. Their primary job as necromancers is to keep the death counts “reasonable.” In Tyria and Elona, however, their job is that and a bit more: they’re to guide restless spirits in the world to peace, care for graves, and study the darker side of magic.
It’s the bit on restless spirits which mixes them to be like ritualists, who’s job is to typically communicate and guide spirits to a restful afterlife as well as using them to do other tasks. In other words, Tyrians and Elonians basically combined the Canthan necromancer and ritualist together.
Then slap in the progress necromancers had with adding in spectral skills (plus their Shadow Fiend minion and somewhat their Death Shroud), it seems all the more likely that ritualists have melded into necromancy, though losing much of their uniqueness, within Tyria.
ROTFL. To quote something someone said to me once, "means absolutely nothing to canon lore until ArenaNet – directly or via the game – makes a show that it does mean something. " So who is guessing now? Sounds to me like you are trying to make it fit your mold. I’ll repeat myself, because they seem similar, does not make it so. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. And you have no proof that is what has happened. Yes developers said some skills and abilities were incorporated into other professions but not hardcore specifics.
There is to quote you, “zero, zip nada” proof that the other professions were not there. All classes had access to the HoM, not just Tyria professions. And since War in Kryta made it more than possible for all classes to have played a part it is idiotic to believe that they didn’t. You even admit that Sunspears were in the Tomb of the Primeval Kings and mention of mercenaries in War in Kryta.
While it’s true that lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lacking – as drax would say – the opposite is not true as well (that lack of evidence doesn’t mean there’s still a presence). On the HoM: That’s a mechanics thing at the least, and cannot be used to definite things – it’d be no different than claiming that there were paragons in Ascalon because you took a Nightfall character to do the early Proph missions.
Yes, I said sunspears were in Tombs, but they didn’t spread past it (fact) – so it’s of no support to you. Yes there were mercenaries, even Canthan ones, but no professions given and – more importantly – we’re told they left. We cannot use the WM secondary professions as proof of anything for reasons I previously stated about skills being used cannot be used outright for lore, as there are cases where said skills are used for effect appearances and not because there’s a charr using a spell called Dwayna’s Sorrow. Hell, dervishes are followers of the Five Gods, yet used by the White Mantle who very much don’t follow the Five Gods? Yes, that makes perfect lore sense.
You’re using MECHANICS for lore. But they’re not interchangable! Yes, there are mechanics existing – or rather, explained by or supporting – lore, but it’s not always so, and things like skills and levels is one such very obscure line.
And your sarcasm that twisted my words was very insulting, by the way. Because I never once said that we can “gloss over” anything. I merely said that nothing about our player characters’ professions or amounts can be used in canon lore.
There are transports between Kamadan and Kaineng Center dude to Lion’s Arch dude. […] Whether they were PC’s or not. They were there. Accept it.
That’s mechanics “dude.” Just like going to Ascalon and playing those missions as a paragon. There wasn’t a paragon there, it’s mechanics to replay old missions – no different than doing the dungeons in GW2 out of order, or repeatedly. That’s not proof in the least. Accept it.
The millions number came from your post, not mine.
But holds no lore value until ArenaNet – not you – says otherwise. Either from their own mouths, or through the games.
3. War in Kryta, see above.
4. EOTN, see above.
5. White Mantle and Peacekeepers had Rits. That is a fact not conjecture. So yes I can say that there were Rits in Tyria. I simply can.
See my bit on skill appearances several posts above. Not proof, only a possibility.
For the ritualists – in GW2, necromancers summon spirits (Shadow Fiends; aka Shades). In GW1, Reiko uses GW2 mesmer mechanics. Those White Mantle “Ritualists” could have been the first necromancers to use spirit minions. The predecessors of Shadow Fiends.
There, I just explained (yes, theoretically) your “fact” as “not ritualist” – using the exact skill appearance explanation I did before.
-next post-
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
I notice that you didn’t say the developers could easily say "They were there and stayed. That would have totally screwed your argument if that were true wouldn’t it?
No I didn’t, because it was implied, sorry I thought you were intelligent enough to realize this. And no it doesn’t. It doesn’t affect my argument either way, because my entire point is that it can go either way – not the way you’re taking it in that you seem to think I’m saying they didn’t. Ever.
Again, yes I can say it. ArenaNet already wrote the lore but you cannot see the forest fore the trees. The lore was called Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, and Eye of the North. The lore was the game.
And yet, you’ve yet to show this lore that’s so definitive! And again, your sarcasm’s becoming insulting.
Wrong. I only used Koss when I had to do so. Same with Melonni and others. They were not always there completing all missions. He wasn’t there for several missions. Because I never took him. Just because he was an integral part of the story line, doesn’t mean he was the hero of it.
Pay attention to the cinematics. For example, the second Moddok Crevice cinematic. No matter who’s in your party – Dunkoro being the only required hero – Koss, Melonni, Zhed, and Tahlkora always appears.
In lore, those heroes are there until the end of the campaign. And I never said Koss was the hero, by the way. I merely said that we know for certain that he is always present.
But there were still heroes and they had impact on the game.
And I’m not disagreeing with this, nor did I ever. There were heroes, but we don’t know anything about who, what, how many, or what they did.
So who is guessing now?
I didn’t know that theorizing based off of canon lore – and not mechanics – is “guessing.” I observed the difference in profession attitudes based on the continents a long time ago, and those observations are easily observable in GW1; and from those observations, I made a comparison and in turn, a theory. It’s not “guessing.”
I seriously think you should take time from the forum, given your incredibly rude sarcasm and now outright insults. You’ve yet to provide anything that’s actually lore – just mechanics that COULD be relevant to lore.
And to clarify, since you seem to constantly miss/forget it from my original post and all subsequent posts:
I’m not saying there were no ritualists, etc. in Tyria ever. I’m saying that we have no definitive proof that there were in large enough numbers to not only remain, but to be mentioned 250 years later.
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
I notice that you didn’t say the developers could easily say "They were there and stayed. That would have totally screwed your argument if that were true wouldn’t it?
No I didn’t, because it was implied, sorry I thought you were intelligent enough to realize this. And no it doesn’t. It doesn’t affect my argument either way, because my entire point is that it can go either way – not the way you’re taking it in that you seem to think I’m saying they didn’t. Ever.
What I am intelligent enough to realize is that you intentionally left it out because it counters your argument that White Mantle were using some other magic or some new form of necromancy or some other guess you are trying to make. See your own reply above. Which is in no way lore. They were ritualists. R. I. T. U. A. L. I. S. T. S. Not new necros, not some other kind of spirit magic. Ritualists. I hate to keep repeating myself, but I think it doesn’t sink in with you. Maybe repetition will work. Maybe you need to play GW1 again to see that their skill bars are the same spells as the Cantha ritualists. In fact, they were called… …wait for it… …White Mantle Ritualist! Not White Mantle ‘Whatever Fits Into Konig Des Todes Dream World of Canon Lore.’
Again, yes I can say it. ArenaNet already wrote the lore but you cannot see the forest fore the trees. The lore was called Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, and Eye of the North. The lore was the game.
And yet, you’ve yet to show this lore that’s so definitive! And again, your sarcasm’s becoming insulting.
I don’t need to show it is definitive. The game itself and outline on the wiki does that for me. It shows the progression of a hero or heroes through the game. It wasn’t a dream progression for us all to play, the game is canon lore. And as far as sarcasm is concerned, yours started many posts back and was insulting from the get go. The superior attitude you have also is wearing thing. It is obvious in most posts you comment on that you enjoy correcting people and trying to demean them. So you are the last person to be critical of someone being sarcastic. And these aren’t just my feelings, several of my friends in a very large, very knowledgeable guild agree. Pompous was another word used for you. This isn’t sarcasm, this is the truth. People in glass houses… Oh and bad language used in your posts could also get you infracted if reported.
Wrong. I only used Koss when I had to do so. Same with Melonni and others. They were not always there completing all missions. He wasn’t there for several missions. Because I never took him. Just because he was an integral part of the story line, doesn’t mean he was the hero of it.
Pay attention to the cinematics. For example, the second Moddok Crevice cinematic. No matter who’s in your party – Dunkoro being the only required hero – Koss, Melonni, Zhed, and Tahlkora always appears.
Yes, they were there in THAT one. They were not always there when Dunkoro was the only hero required. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gate_of_Pain_ I was paying attention to the cinematics. So you being condescending and telling me to “Pay attention” is good advice. For you.
In lore, those heroes are there until the end of the campaign. And I never said Koss was the hero, by the way. I merely said that we know for certain that he is always present.
Again, not always present. See above. And you are right, you did not say he was the hero. But you did say that he was always present. He attached himself to one hero, not multiple heroes and according to you he was involved with every step (though not true). So above when you say it could be several heroes completing different parts of the story line, this cannot be true. Koss didn’t skip around from hero to hero. That was my point. He attached himself to one person. We just all got to play that one person.
continued…
But there were still heroes and they had impact on the game.
And I’m not disagreeing with this, nor did I ever. There were heroes, but we don’t know anything about who, what, how many, or what they did.
Again, it doesn’t matter if there was one or one for each campaign. The fact of the matter is that there was one hero that completed the Elona story line and EOTN storyline because the heroes attached themselves to one hero. The prophecies and factions campaign could have had every minor and major story line completed by a different hero. The fact remains is that PC’s played those heroes. It doesn’t matter if GW2 history never names that person(s) or not. Maybe he/she/they are an amalgamation of all the PC’s that played, the fact remains that each of us got to play the hero(es). We made the story lines happen, not an NPC.
So who is guessing now?
I didn’t know that theorizing based off of canon lore – and not mechanics – is “guessing.” I observed the difference in profession attitudes based on the continents a long time ago, and those observations are easily observable in GW1; and from those observations, I made a comparison and in turn, a theory. It’s not “guessing.”
I seriously think you should take time from the forum, given your incredibly rude sarcasm and now outright insults. You’ve yet to provide anything that’s actually lore – just mechanics that COULD be relevant to lore.
Again, you are the last person that should be critiquing anyone’s behavior. Your pompous superior attitude is prevalent in many posts. And not just on this thread. When people do not agree with you or question your take on lore, you go out of your way to argue with them and beat them down until they give up. And you call me rude? I’m not being rude, I’m just being reactionary to the way you argue everything and everyone that does not agree with your take on things. Particularly when you have to “theorize.” Your theories and conjectures are always better than others even though they are just theories. Theories are not proven and even to be a theory it has to be generally accepted as true and without question. Until you get a general consensus from all players and Anet, your “theories” are just guesses. So you don’t have theories, you have educated guesses based on information available. That’s not sarcasm, that is fact. Other people have them too. And it is just as plausible to base those guesses on mechanics which are part of lore as it is from any other source.
I don’t need to take a break from the forums, I have a polite disagreements or difference of opinions with others and enjoy their take on things. I enjoy thinking about their takes on matters that we don’t know. But I am never belittled and bulldogged by them as I an others are by you. But you never concede anything to anyone even when you could be wrong. You are always the first to correct everyone and you enjoy it. Many posts you have were simply to correct others even if they make wording mistakes but their intent was obvious. You told me what you think I need to do, now I will reply in kind. I think you need to not accuse anyone of anything until you take a good long look in the mirror and do a little self-evaluation. Because if you think you are just being knowledgeable, I am here to say that you are not. You are rude and condescending. And the name calling. I didn’t start it you did, along with foul language.
And to clarify, since you seem to constantly miss/forget it from my original post and all subsequent posts:
I’m not saying there were no ritualists, etc. in Tyria ever. I’m saying that we have no definitive proof that there were in large enough numbers to not only remain, but to be mentioned 250 years later.
I never missed or forgot a thing you said. I also never said you believed there were no ritualists in Tyria. You obviously want to make it out that I am missing something or forgetting what you said because I don’t agree with you. Not all of us hang on your every word or agree with your every take on lore. You are knowledgeable, I already gave you that, but we don’t have to concede to your every take on lore and possibility. You obviously don’t think you can ever be wrong and anyone who disagrees with you is.
One last comment. I would really be contrite and feel awful if I believed that I was sarcastic toward a person that didn’t have it coming. All foul language, name-calling and condescension started with you. Again, I was reactionary with any sarcasm. It is how I deal with people who are rude and arrogant. So if I was rude and sarcastic, it was only reaction in kind.
(Opting out of reading all the posts in depth because it turned into a drama bomb)
I think they could do some neat things that are more similar to ritualists with a Shaman-type character than what has been incorporated into Guardians/Necromancers. Shaman are still around in the game, so it seems plausible enough IMO.
My main issue would be that I don’t think I’d want a reworked Ritualist. I mained one for so long on GW1, and preferred healing more often than not… No dedicated healers in GW2 would kinda put me off, but who knows. That’s just me, not a huge fan of change lol.
Actually, we have been told outright that paragons at least came over to Tyria in enough numbers to have an influence (in the development of the guardian profession).
I’m pretty sure, now that I think on it, that it has actually been stated by ArenaNet that ritualists and dervishes came over. The issue is that the big ritualist and dervish schools remained in Cantha and Elona respectively. Ritualists and dervishes that came over to Tyria knew how to use the skills, but not necessarily to teach them. In turn, their students may only have learned a fraction of the full body of lore, and they would only be able to pass on what they themselves learned. With the central body of learning on these traditions having been cut off, such attrition of knowledge over the centuries could easily have lead to a situation where the professions no longer retained enough of their skill base to remain full professions in their own right, with what remained of their body of knowledge being absorbed into other professions.
Something similar also occurred with the assassin – some of their skills were adopted by thieves, but much of the body has been lost – unlike ritualists and dervishes, though, thieves were able to discover enough new skills to compensate.
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.
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.
(Opting out of reading all the posts in depth because it turned into a drama bomb)
I think they could do some neat things that are more similar to ritualists with a Shaman-type character than what has been incorporated into Guardians/Necromancers. Shaman are still around in the game, so it seems plausible enough IMO.
My main issue would be that I don’t think I’d want a reworked Ritualist. I mained one for so long on GW1, and preferred healing more often than not… No dedicated healers in GW2 would kinda put me off, but who knows. That’s just me, not a huge fan of change lol.
LOL. You are right, it did turn into a drama bomb. I’m sorry I was involved. And sorry that you all had to endure it. I can’t believe I wasted my time with that.
I get what you are saying about rits. I was a spirit spammer. It was my main as well. Only I am curious to see what they would do with one. One of my favorite things was discovering what they did with the returning classes. I think I would be equally curious to see what they would do with any of the other classes that we haven’t seen. Even if they had evolved into something totally different than what they were.
Actually, we have been told outright that paragons at least came over to Tyria in enough numbers to have an influence (in the development of the guardian profession).
I’m pretty sure, now that I think on it, that it has actually been stated by ArenaNet that ritualists and dervishes came over. The issue is that the big ritualist and dervish schools remained in Cantha and Elona respectively. Ritualists and dervishes that came over to Tyria knew how to use the skills, but not necessarily to teach them. In turn, their students may only have learned a fraction of the full body of lore, and they would only be able to pass on what they themselves learned. With the central body of learning on these traditions having been cut off, such attrition of knowledge over the centuries could easily have lead to a situation where the professions no longer retained enough of their skill base to remain full professions in their own right, with what remained of their body of knowledge being absorbed into other professions.
Something similar also occurred with the assassin – some of their skills were adopted by thieves, but much of the body has been lost – unlike ritualists and dervishes, though, thieves were able to discover enough new skills to compensate.
I think that this all sounds completely plausible and makes great sense. I just wish that there was some in-game reference to these lost professions.
I think it also makes sense that some skills were adopted or adapted to fit into current professions. Again, it would be cool to have some acknowledgment of this. But I really like your explanation.
Just found it, actually – it was one of the TowerTalk lore interviews:
http://www.wartower.de/artikel/artikel.php?id=682
About two thirds in. Don’t worry about the German – the interview is in English after the first minute or two.
Basically, though, the summary is a mix of what I said (there were people that knew the professions in Tyria, but the true masters were in Cantha and Elona) with the additional impact of the destruction of Lion’s Arch with Zhaitan’s rise – which was where most of the Tyrians that were trying to keep those professions alive in Tyria were located.
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.
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)
I hope we will see Shiro Tagachi come back in an expansion like Cantha and Ritualist as well.
Shiro would never come back because his story was told and is over, not to mention he’s imprisoned in hell by this point. He was just a pawn to abbadon and abbadon’s gone, i’d rather they focus on us taking down the government and it’s humanity are best propaganda(my main is a human but i like equal treatment) which has more room for vast stories then shiro twirly moustache kill everything logic.
(Opting out of reading all the posts in depth because it turned into a drama bomb)
I think they could do some neat things that are more similar to ritualists with a Shaman-type character than what has been incorporated into Guardians/Necromancers. Shaman are still around in the game, so it seems plausible enough IMO.
My main issue would be that I don’t think I’d want a reworked Ritualist. I mained one for so long on GW1, and preferred healing more often than not… No dedicated healers in GW2 would kinda put me off, but who knows. That’s just me, not a huge fan of change lol.
LOL. You are right, it did turn into a drama bomb. I’m sorry I was involved. And sorry that you all had to endure it. I can’t believe I wasted my time with that.
I get what you are saying about rits. I was a spirit spammer. It was my main as well. Only I am curious to see what they would do with one. One of my favorite things was discovering what they did with the returning classes. I think I would be equally curious to see what they would do with any of the other classes that we haven’t seen. Even if they had evolved into something totally different than what they were.
I’d like to see how their return was handled, too, honestly. I just don’t think I’d be inclined to play one, my nostalgia goggles would break into a thousand pieces.
jheryn.8390, if seems you still didn’t bother to understand what I was saying. Drama bomb indeed. Sorry I tried to re-explain reasonably, won’t bother anymore (btw, one cinematic? Try all EotN ones and at least 5 NF ones).
Either way, as I see it, drax settled the debate.
Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.
jheryn.8390, if seems you still didn’t bother to understand what I was saying. Drama bomb indeed. Sorry I tried to re-explain reasonably, won’t bother anymore (btw, one cinematic? Try all EotN ones and at least 5 NF ones).
Either way, as I see it, drax settled the debate.
This is my definite last words to you because despite what you said, you obviously just can’t let anything go. Look at your last statement in parenthesis and the words preceding it. The whole post was just another dig and insult to me.
I tried to just drop it and I apologized to those in the thread for my part in our, yes OUR, bit of drama. All you have to say for yourself is above. Sad.
Again, I apologize to the people in this thread for this post to this person. I can guaranty you will not see me address him again even though I am certain he will respond to me. You cannot have friendly debate and polite disagreement with such a person, so I am done.
But I would love to see the Rit make a return at some point. Since it is known that the Rits magic is different from the magic of the bloodstone (yes after the bloodstone it is possible they started using that magic) they could start again, but as Drax said above we would at least have to go to Elona to find someone who would be a master since it seems most of died off here in Tyria that would have used this type of magic.
I also believe that PC’s do hold some sway on lore. Now you have to look at the story from the point of view of just a small group of heros or a single hero. The story is supposed to be your story in the world not everyone that is playing. (This is figuratively speaking of course) So I killed abbadon, I killed Shiro, there should be some way of showing that a hero did it, it could be hero whos name has been lost to time, but it is a way for any of us to look at that and know that was me that did it.
But anyways, that was a good topic I enjoyed reading and getting everyones ideas on it, even with the little bit of drama that came along with it.
Hjorje
______________________________________
Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of my way.
______________________________________
Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of my way.
(edited by Hjorje.9453)
Also keep in mind something far more important: skills in GW1 were not always used to show the enemies’ profession in lore. That is to say – charr monks didn’t pray to the Five Gods, despite the lore behind monks being that they got their powers from the gods. Same with dervishes and the like. As such, the assassins, dervishes, ritualists, and paragons seen in Tyria during WiK/EotN were not actually those professions, but they were, visually, akin to those professions to the point where they could be mistaken for the two.
Humans believed that the power of the monks came from the gods (or some did, anyway – the more academic among them had to have realised that monk magic was surely Preservation and no more or less related to the gods than any of the others). Remember that monk magic was the basis for guardians now, though, and belief in the gods is not required for belief in guardians, just belief in something. Charr monks in GW1 were almost certainly the same as human monks, except the faith of human monks was in the gods, while that of charr monks was in the Titans or their warband and legion.
A clearer example is in nonsapient magical creatures such as drakes – for instance, the Krytan river drakes in GW1 are probably the same as the lightning-breathing river drakes rangers can tame in GW2 (ignoring the silliness of some drake types behaving differently as monsters than they do as pets – ANet really should do something about that).
In the case of Ritualists… I’d regard it as a pretty clear-cut case that the profession started to spread outside Cantha, but between 1080AE and the GW2 present it fell out of favour again. Some elements may have been absorbed into professions such as the guardian and necromancer, but on the whole the profession seems to have largely died out.
While Charr would get their monk power from different ways than humans did, I think Konig got a point in that some professions and skills were used more for in-game purposses to show certain abilities and mechanics than for the lore behind them. For what we know Ritualists outside Cantha might be just shamans and necromancers with certain abilities and the best ways to represent them ingame without adding a new array of skills was to use the already existing Ritualist ones. Just like monsters were given professions while we know they really didn’t train on any profession but it was the best way to represent what they could do.
For example Charr could use Dwayna’s Kiss and I’m sure this was purely for the mechanics of the skill and not because the Charr would pray to Dwayna:
(edited by Lokheit.7943)
Also keep in mind something far more important: skills in GW1 were not always used to show the enemies’ profession in lore. That is to say – charr monks didn’t pray to the Five Gods, despite the lore behind monks being that they got their powers from the gods. Same with dervishes and the like. As such, the assassins, dervishes, ritualists, and paragons seen in Tyria during WiK/EotN were not actually those professions, but they were, visually, akin to those professions to the point where they could be mistaken for the two.
Humans believed that the power of the monks came from the gods (or some did, anyway – the more academic among them had to have realised that monk magic was surely Preservation and no more or less related to the gods than any of the others). Remember that monk magic was the basis for guardians now, though, and belief in the gods is not required for belief in guardians, just belief in something. Charr monks in GW1 were almost certainly the same as human monks, except the faith of human monks was in the gods, while that of charr monks was in the Titans or their warband and legion.
A clearer example is in nonsapient magical creatures such as drakes – for instance, the Krytan river drakes in GW1 are probably the same as the lightning-breathing river drakes rangers can tame in GW2 (ignoring the silliness of some drake types behaving differently as monsters than they do as pets – ANet really should do something about that).
In the case of Ritualists… I’d regard it as a pretty clear-cut case that the profession started to spread outside Cantha, but between 1080AE and the GW2 present it fell out of favour again. Some elements may have been absorbed into professions such as the guardian and necromancer, but on the whole the profession seems to have largely died out.
While Charr would get their monk power from different ways than humans did, I think Konig got a point in that some professions and skills were used more for in-game purposses to show certain abilities and mechanics than for the lore behind them. For what we know Ritualists outside Cantha might be just shamans and necromancers with certain abilities and the best ways to represent them ingame without adding a new array of skills was to use the already existing Ritualist ones. Just like monsters were given professions while we know they really didn’t train on any profession but it was the best way to represent what they could do.
For example Charr could use Dwayna’s Kiss and I’m sure this was purely for the mechanics of the skill and not because the Charr would pray to Dwayna:
you gotta remember guardians use monk and paragon abilities meshed into one. If anything the name of the skill on the charr is how our human characters named the spell because we know that monk magic could have possible different names among different races.
since we know monk magic comes from the bloodstones and not the gods but gw1 humans didn’t know this so the skill’s name could just be because of the limited lore explained in gw1 it could just be what our character’s know the name by(we don’t actually understand the naming process of skills in general).
There are certainly some cases where a creature is using a skill from a profession when they are clearly not a member of that profession. For instance, drakes in Prophecies had skill sets that essentially represented them breathing fire, lightning and so on – GW2 drakes actually breathe fire (or lightning, or ice, or, disturbingly, swarms of insects). Mind you, even then, they’re probably still tapping into energies of similar nature to those used by elementalists and which elementalists can learn to duplicate – however, they do so instinctively rather than through training.
However, when it comes to sapient beings… we know that the four spellcaster professions of Prophecies corresponded to the four schools of magic associated with the Bloodstones, and we know that none of those schools require praying to the gods specifically. The school associated with monks and guardians (believed to be Preservation) requires faith, but does not care what that faith is in.
Thus, I’m pretty sure that the ‘monks’ of the charr, White Mantle, Mursaat, and other groups that do not believe in the Five are drawing from the same source of power, and using the same spells, as the PC monks. They’d have their own names for the profession and the spells within the profession, but fundamentally, a charr shaman or a White Mantle Abbot was drawing on Preservation just like PC monks, and used the same skills as those available to PC monks. In the example of Dwayna’s Kiss, then, it’s probably still the same spell, but the charr mythology built up around the spell has no relation to Dwayna.
The only skills, IMO, that we can say with any real certainty are definitely tied to the gods are the five avatars.
A similar case arises with Ritualists. The fundamental distinguishing factor of ritualists is being able to conjure the spirits of the dead – a non-Canthan ritualist is clearly dealing with the same forces, whether instinctively or whether as part of a tradition of their own. The twist is that while Canthan ritualists adopted bloodstone magic, the fundamental part of being a ritualist – calling and communing with the dead – is not related to a bloodstone, and thus it could easily be rolled into another profession.
As an example, an observation has been made that the healing focus of PC ritualists might indicate a connection with Preservation magic – however, the charr ritualists we see imply that they connect it with necromancy (name similarity with the Ash Bearers, and necromancer is the most common profession multiclassed with ritualist among the charr). Thus, a plausible hypothesis is that ritualistesque skills in the guardian come from what was left of the human ritualist tradition in Tyria, while all of the various spectral skills in the necromancer come from the charr tradition… which never separated necromancer and ritualist in the first place.
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.
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.
I don’t think it’s a far stretch for animals to actually use magic in general because magic is in the air and we don’t know how much hard science is involved with animals and their abilities in the guild wars reality. So a drake using fire breath could be calling on the destruction school. We don’t know on this because these questions aren’t really important to alot of people.
That’s pretty close to my thought – the destruction school, or energies similar in nature to it (while most of the magic available to mortals is through the Bloodstones, it is known that there was some magic available before Abaddon unlocked the Seer proto-Bloodstone. It’s more likely that magical animals learned to use this environmental magic rather than bloodstone magic).
However, what magic they have is used instinctively, not as part of a magical tradition. A fire drake hasn’t learned its skills from an elementalist school or an apprenticeship. It doesn’t have a library of skills that it can prepare or drop depending on the situation. It just… breathes fire.
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.
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.
That’s pretty close to my thought – the destruction school, or energies similar in nature to it (while most of the magic available to mortals is through the Bloodstones, it is known that there was some magic available before Abaddon unlocked the Seer proto-Bloodstone. It’s more likely that magical animals learned to use this environmental magic rather than bloodstone magic).
However, what magic they have is used instinctively, not as part of a magical tradition. A fire drake hasn’t learned its skills from an elementalist school or an apprenticeship. It doesn’t have a library of skills that it can prepare or drop depending on the situation. It just… breathes fire.
My main point is that the abilities they used may have been similar to actual magic used by humans enough that the humans thought the abilities to be the same so the names are the same for identification purposes only(it’d be an interesting possibility of why abilities shared the same name if only how our characters knew bout said abilities and named them as such. I’m aware that monster abilities obviously can’t share this same luxery but i in no shape or form claim what i say to be true only as a possible thought nothing more or less).
There are some ritualist-like spells performed in game. For example, Priestess Rhie summons the spirit of Alastia Crow from the underworld. This is one of the defining traits of ritualist magic. Pure speculation: I suspect the ghostbore musket was built using ritualist weapon spell magic (seems like what a ritualist weapon spell would do).
From a strictly game mechanics standpoint, the ritualist role was taken by the engineer with turrets instead of spirits and tool kits instead of bundles of ashes.
Priestess Rhie is a follower of Grenth, which means she is most likely fairly knowledgeable about the necromancer profession. So this would most likely point back to what Konig has stated about necromancy taking in some of the teachings of the ritualists.
Priestess Rhie is a follower of Grenth, which means she is most likely fairly knowledgeable about the necromancer profession. So this would most likely point back to what Konig has stated about necromancy taking in some of the teachings of the ritualists.
I agree that Necros and Guardians have incorporated some of the Ritualists’ magic, however, Konig and I finally agreed that Draxynnic answered the question of whether or not Ritualists were there. He found a website (actually a vid) that confirms they were in Tyria along with the rest of the missing professions.
Draxynnic wrote:
Just found it, actually – it was one of the TowerTalk lore interviews:
http://www.wartower.de/artikel/artikel.php?id=682
About two thirds in. Don’t worry about the German – the interview is in English after the first minute or two.
Basically, though, the summary is a mix of what I said (there were people that knew the professions in Tyria, but the true masters were in Cantha and Elona) with the additional impact of the destruction of Lion’s Arch with Zhaitan’s rise – which was where most of the Tyrians that were trying to keep those professions alive in Tyria were located.
Priestess Rhie is a follower of Grenth, which means she is most likely fairly knowledgeable about the necromancer profession. So this would most likely point back to what Konig has stated about necromancy taking in some of the teachings of the ritualists.
Ironically enough, actually, IIRC Rhie uses the same lightning orb projectiles in combat as the Priestess of Dwayna in the Fields of Ruin. For the Priestess of Dwayna, this is easily explained by her being an elementalist as the best-fit for a monk in modern times. For Rhie, however…
…I’m tempted to call “oversight”, but if we assume that it is indeed deliberate, then the combination of lightning effects with a spirit-summoning ritual might mean that Rhie is a rare example of a true modern ritualist. Alternatively, we’ve never really had an explanation for how some of the new effects like elemental summoning glyphs and weapon conjures work – it could be that (unlike naturally occurring elementals) an elementalist summoning an elemental is actually conjuring a spirit using ritualist techniques, while also forming an elemental body for it to inhabit.
If you made a similar postulation regarding mesmer illusions, then we could generate a situation in which every branch of magic has absorbed a bit from the elementalist, albeit with their own slants.
PS: On the Ghostbore weapons: I’d always just assumed, since your character can make them regardless of profession, that they were similar to engineer alchemy – the Iron Legion PC found a way to create a magical effect through the innate magical properties of some material or ingredient rather than enchanting it him- or herself.
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.
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.
Priestess Rhie is a follower of Grenth, which means she is most likely fairly knowledgeable about the necromancer profession. So this would most likely point back to what Konig has stated about necromancy taking in some of the teachings of the ritualists.
Grenth was the Human god associated with the ritualist profession, as well as necromancers, elementalists and dervishes.
On the Ghostbore weapons: I’d always just assumed, since your character can make them regardless of profession, that they were similar to engineer alchemy – the Iron Legion PC found a way to create a magical effect through the innate magical properties of some material or ingredient rather than enchanting it him- or herself.
This makes sense and says “Iron legion” to me.
…I’m tempted to call “oversight”, but if we assume that it is indeed deliberate, then the combination of lightning effects with a spirit-summoning ritual might mean that Rhie is a rare example of a true modern ritualist. Alternatively, we’ve never really had an explanation for how some of the new effects like elemental summoning glyphs and weapon conjures work – it could be that (unlike naturally occurring elementals) an elementalist summoning an elemental is actually conjuring a spirit using ritualist techniques, while also forming an elemental body for it to inhabit.
It sounds a lot like the theory behind the tamed elementals in Garrenhoff and the people that Isengarren invites to his tower which never return…. Although in my mind it seems just as likely that necromancer minions have spirits within them as the elementals. It makes more sense to me that they are merely mindless beings following their master’s commands.