Guild Wars 2

Personally I don’t think it feels right but…

The only time before that we encountered Miasma was in the Zen Dajun mission and it was designed to spread Shiro’s corruption.

So wanted to make some facts bout this.
First off all, the english meaning. This is actually just that it is rotting gaz, mostly breathed by others and contagious.

We only visit lion’s arch for an 1 hour time frame. We know the miasma is building, but we are ordered out after the hour (or killed and transported out. So on us players it has the same effect as in GW1 (breathe too much too long you get killed). What the effect will be on the NPC’s is unknown.

So what if the thing that Ceara saw in her vision is Shiro and that he is in control of her???

Shiro’s power came from Abandon. And Abandon is dead.

CHIPS.6018:

Shiro’s power came from Abandon. And Abandon is dead.

Not necessarily. It could just as easily been power attained by his status as an enjoy, or by some independent dark means that Abaddon may or may not have pointed him towards. There was nothing to suggest he ever directly channeled power from Abaddon.

I wouldn’t mind Shiro being involved myself, but there’s really nothing to point to it. GW2 has before appropriated GW1 terms and completely twisted their meaning- see ascension, agony, infusion, just about any of the ascended crafting materials (I mean, vision crystal? Really? Was that at all necessary?).

The miasma that Scarlet uses is not the same as what Shiro caused. For Shiro, it was his mere messing between spirit and mortal realms (aka The Mists and Tyria); it was, in other words, a spiritual miasma. Scarlet’s miasma, however, is from plants that were altered to be deadly.

It is, quite simply, the toxins of Tower of Nightmares improved and modified. It no longer gives hallucinations like before, but it is resilient to the old antitoxin and is even far longer lasting. In the lair under the Priory one can see one of Canach’s plants he used to spread the enraging pollens amongst the karka, stabbed a bit and next to one of Marjory’s antitoxin filled injector. It seems pretty obvious that she used Canach’s plants – whatever their origins – to enhance her poison which removed its hallucinogenic effect but made it tougher and deadlier.

We know the origin of Scarlet’s miasma, and it is not spiritual but plant-based. And Shiro had no relation to plants.

There’s dialogue at the Lornar’s camp about the miasma and something about Hylek.

Kyrel.8942:

There’s dialogue at the Lornar’s camp about the miasma and something about Hylek.

They just say that the hylek discovered it isn’t fatal in small doses, and the way they discovered it had something to do with bonfires. There’s nothing linking it to them though- sounds like the Priory just went to them for an expert opinion.

Miasma is a pretty general term – it doesn’t imply a link at all, as others have pointed out.

abbadon is not dead, even though in gw1 the player defeats abbadon and kormir gains his power, it is never stated that he ceases to exist.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

They just say that the hylek discovered it isn’t fatal in small doses, and the way they discovered it had something to do with bonfires. There’s nothing linking it to them though- sounds like the Priory just went to them for an expert opinion.

Good call by the writers. Makes sense to consult the hyleck in matters pertaining to potions and plants. It’s be nice if they had short stories that delved deeper into background details like what the hyleck went through and discovered. Even just for fluff to provide world depth.

Miasma is a thing in guild wars like “Hylek” or “Mists”. All magic has its source in a number of magical “Poles” like our real world electrical charges. If Abaddon can use one of these sources, Scarlet can too, even if not the same way..

Assassin X.8573:

abbadon is not dead, even though in gw1 the player defeats abbadon and kormir gains his power, it is never stated that he ceases to exist.

Kormir specifically states, once becoming a goddess, that Abaddon is no more. On top of that, we have Word of God (a.k.a. Word of Grubb) that he is indeed dead.

Sometimes a poisonous atmosphere is just a poisonous atmosphere.
I wonder if the devs were inspired by the smog over that other LA …

Narcemus.1348:

Kormir specifically states, once becoming a goddess, that Abaddon is no more. On top of that, we have Word of God (a.k.a. Word of Grubb) that he is indeed dead.

Until the Guild Wars Franchise is concluded the validity of his death will always be contested. This is because the decision can always be changed at a later date if it would mean a more entertaining story.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Narcemus.1348:

Kormir specifically states, once becoming a goddess, that Abaddon is no more. On top of that, we have Word of God (a.k.a. Word of Grubb) that he is indeed dead.

Until the Guild Wars Franchise is concluded the validity of his death will always be contested. This is because the decision can always be changed at a later date if it would mean a more entertaining story.

SIGH We’ve been through this before… In light of no new evidence, what we have been told is taken as solid lore…

Otherwise we could just go off on a rampage and decide the triple headed jungle wurm is actually Melandru… I mean, until GW universe is over, they could always decide that this is a much more entertaining story [/sarcasm]

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Narcemus.1348:

Kormir specifically states, once becoming a goddess, that Abaddon is no more. On top of that, we have Word of God (a.k.a. Word of Grubb) that he is indeed dead.

Until the Guild Wars Franchise is concluded the validity of his death will always be contested. This is because the decision can always be changed at a later date if it would mean a more entertaining story.

Ehh. Literally everything has a possibility for a retcon but that doesn’t make every thing contested. Right now word of god said Abbadon is dead. That means he’s dead. If that gets retconned later then he won’t be but right now the lore is that he is dead.

Dustfinger.9510:

Ehh. Literally everything has a possibility for a retcon but that doesn’t make every thing contested. Right now word of god said Abbadon is dead. That means he’s dead. If that gets retconned later then he won’t be but right now the lore is that he is dead.

Actually it does make everything contested, as there is no proof they will stand by the decision in any and all circumstances.

Anyways there is still a possibility that the artifacts, forbidden knowledge, and even surviving servants of Abaddon can still pose a threat to Tyria. They could use any of these to satisfy those who wish for Abaddon’s return yet maintain their “He’s gone” response.

Narcemus.1348:

SIGH We’ve been through this before… In light of no new evidence, what we have been told is taken as solid lore…

Otherwise we could just go off on a rampage and decide the triple headed jungle wurm is actually Melandru… I mean, until GW universe is over, they could always decide that this is a much more entertaining story [/sarcasm]

You are correct they could if they wanted to. Here’s a thought try using the lore presented to explain why something can or can’t be, instead of relying on the “Oh they said so” excuse. This way one doesn’t look like a complete fool when the decision is changed.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Dustfinger.9510:

Ehh. Literally everything has a possibility for a retcon but that doesn’t make every thing contested. Right now word of god said Abbadon is dead. That means he’s dead. If that gets retconned later then he won’t be but right now the lore is that he is dead.

Actually it does make everything contested. Without any proof the decision will hold under any and all circumstances, it can’t be considered the word of god. That would imply there is not even the slightest chance for them to consider altering or outright voiding that decision.

Anyways there is still a possibility that the artifacts, forbidden knowledge, and even surviving servants of Abaddon can still pose a threat to Tyria. They could use any of these to satisfy those who wish for Abaddon’s return yet maintain their “He’s gone” response.

By that rule, there is absolutely no lore because everything is contested an infinite number of ways. But we know that there is lore. The term ‘contested’ means that there is some actual working evidence in conflict. But just acknowleging the infinite possibilities of the universe isn’t evidence at work.

Dustfinger.9510:

By that rule, there is absolutely no lore because everything is contested an infinite number of ways. But we know that there is lore. The term ‘contested’ means that there is some actual working evidence in conflict. But just acknowleging the infinite possibilities of the universe isn’t evidence at work.

First before I give my counter argument allow me to say you make a good counter argument.

The evidence that conflicts with their statement is the mere opening of the alternative reality flood gates, without any thought towards the possible implications of their opening. They have provided a multitude of ways they could reintroduced Abaddon directly to the story of Guild Wars 2, a few I can think of will technically not break their “He’s gone” statement.

Onto the topic of Lore. Lore is presented from an in-game perspective, which means it can be inaccurate or outright wrong as legends in the real world can be. This is done to give the writer an loophole they can exploit to make alterations to any part of the story. Using available lore sources as counter to hypotheses and theories are expected and seemingly encouraged by story writers, as the debates themselves generate potential plot hooks the writer could use if they are subjugated to the horrible Writer’s Block. However those using “Oh the writer said this character is gone ergo god has spoken.” don’t encourage intellectual debates which could potentially help the writer by providing some inspiration.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Dustfinger.9510:

By that rule, there is absolutely no lore because everything is contested an infinite number of ways. But we know that there is lore. The term ‘contested’ means that there is some actual working evidence in conflict. But just acknowleging the infinite possibilities of the universe isn’t evidence at work.

First before I give my counter argument allow me to say you make a good counter argument.

The evidence that conflicts with their statement is the mere opening of the alternative reality flood gates, without any thought towards the possible implications of their opening. They have provided a multitude of ways they could reintroduced Abaddon directly to the story of Guild Wars 2, a few I can think of will technically not break their “He’s gone” statement.

Thank you. And I am completely with you on all of this. Abbadon can still be dead while ripples of his actions still effect the world. Be it in the form of artifacts, minions, chain reaction, etc. as you said.

Onto the topic of Lore. Lore is presented from an in-game perspective, which means it can be inaccurate or outright wrong as legends in the real world can be. This is done to give the writer an loophole they can exploit to make alterations to any part of the story. Using available lore sources as counter to hypotheses and theories are expected and seemingly encouraged by story writers, as the debates themselves generate potential plot hooks the writer could use if they are subjugated to the horrible Writer’s Block. However those using “Oh the writer said this character is gone ergo god has spoken.” don’t encourage intellectual debates which could potentially help the writer by providing some inspiration.

I am also completely in agreement with all of this as well. In game characters opinions and points of view are fallible. That can all change without needing a retcon.

I love these lore forums because I love to discuss lore and it’s possibilities. But I think we still need to acknowledge the boundaries the writers have created. So when they give us out-of-game, word-of-god rules, it only serves to help guide and focus our discussions. Certainly it is limiting for themselves, but they would know the consquences of setting those rules. The consequences being that going against those self imposed rules is going to cause fans of the lore to be less interested and less invested in it because nothing is sacred and therefor there really is nothing to discuss because it can all change at a whim.

We as fans can still discuss what we wished would have happened. I think we just shouldn’t confuse it with the set boundaries. especially when the writers have expressed their intentions against those ideas. So we can say things like “I wish there were elves and fleshy dwarves in GW2, an Abbadon survived” but we also need to acknowledge that the writers have descided that they aren’t a good fit for their world.

When the devs confirmed Abbodon being dead, it was Jeff lamenting that they had killed him. He basically said that he wished it wouldn’t have happened but sadly it had. That is a good indication that he intends to stick with the established lore. And that at least gives me comfort that he is disciplined enough to work with the hard rules that he inherited. Which allows me to get invested in a story.

All in all, judging from this post of yours, we aren’t too far off (if at all) in terms of where we stand. it’s just the definitions of terms like ‘contested’ and ‘lore’ that we differ on because I think yours may be a little too loose to express the common ground.

Either way, I’m glad you are able and willing to explain your view in more depth

Dustfinger.9510:

Thank you.

You welcome.

Dustfinger.9510:

I love these lore forums because I love to discuss lore and it’s possibilities. But I think we still need to acknowledge the boundaries the writers have created. So when they give us out-of-game, word-of-god rules, it only serves to help guide and focus our discussions. Certainly it is limiting for themselves, but they would know the consquences of setting those rules. The consequences being that going against those self imposed rules is going to cause fans of the lore to be less interested and less invested in it because nothing is sacred and therefor there really is nothing to discuss because it can all change at a whim.

I also like lurking about the lore forums and I do acknowledge the boundaries set by the writers. However I have noted certain things within the Lore that they at least thought about bringing Abaddon back, and simply left the potential hook there in case it is ever needed. One such hook is the possibility of alternative realities, since they did not state there are only one set of human gods for all realities they have left it (unintentional or intentional is up to perspective) open that Abaddon can return yet wouldn’t be breaking their original statement of he’s gone. Another hook presented within the lore itself. Kormir says his will is broken, but not that it can’t be reformed. I will concede the odds are not in favor of his will reforming but the potential hook for such a story is there.

Dustfinger.9510:

We as fans can still discuss what we wished would have happened. I think we just shouldn’t confuse it with the set boundaries. especially when the writers have expressed their intentions against those ideas. So we can say things like “I wish there were elves and fleshy dwarves in GW2, an Abbadon survived” but we also need to acknowledge that the writers have descided that they aren’t a good fit for their world.

I agree we should be allowed to discuss such and that we should be aware of the writer’s current stance on the matter. However I disagree we should use that current stance as the sole basis of an counter argument. It doesn’t really add substance to the debate and often causes more problems then it resolves. Also I don’t recall them saying that Abaddon couldn’t be resurrected only that he is indeed dead. Even if they said he couldn’t be resurrected it doesn’t prevent one of his old servants from attempting to do so. Although I imagine many of the players won’t even lift a finger to stop said servant in the belief they will automatically fail regardless of what the players do.

Dustfinger.9510:

All in all, judging from this post of yours, we aren’t too far off (if at all) in terms of where we stand. it’s just the definitions of terms like ‘contested’ and ‘lore’ that we differ on because I think yours may be a little too loose to express the common ground.

Either way, I’m glad you are able and willing to explain your view in more depth

I have to agree we do seem to be saying similar beliefs.

Let me google something for you..

“Miasma Define”

….

mi·as·ma
m??azm?,m?-/
noun
literary
noun: miasma; plural noun: miasmas

1.
a highly unpleasant or unhealthy smell or vapor.
“a miasma of stale alcohol hung around him like marsh gas”
synonyms: stink, reek, stench, fetor, smell, fume, odor, whiff; More

^Miasma is a blanket term for any type of vapor/mist that is thought to be unhealthy or foul in nature. Back in times of old, in Europe, The Plague was thought to be caused by mist, dubbed Miasma, and infected those who breathed it in.

My mains (Mesmer) Name is a derivative of this. technically it’s not a real word but Miasmism has a fitting tone to it.

It’s also used in games a fair ammount so I don’t find the need to suddenly jump to lofty conclusions that this is strongly tied into lore. Infact, as stated previously in the LS, some of the Nightmare tower was recovered that was Immune to Jory’s antitoxin, we pondered then what scarlet might use it for. The toxic cloud over LA being exactly what she used it for.

If you want to try and force the Abaddon angle, you’d hafta try and pull the Nightmare Tower into this and attempt to say that it drew power from a dead god, via the Krait and Nightmare court.

This would also mean that the Krait Obelisks are of abaddon. the Pale tree is of abaddon.. etc etc..

Lore doesn’t support your arguments in this case i’m afraid.

Abaddon is dead, replaced and consumed by Kormir. Abaddons chosen race were the Margonites, which were locked away with him. any remaining Remanents of the God are inert and have lost their venom (see Mallyx from Gw1, the creature formed from the last remaining bits of the gods corrupted power). His temple lies at the sea bed, his priests corrupted by zhaitan.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Actually it does make everything contested, as there is no proof they will stand by the decision in any and all circumstances.

By your very arguments, I can say that Tyria is a world made out of poop and you will have no means of counteracting me.

Your argument makes everything a contested lore fact or speculation. Anything is possible by your argument, and it would be impossible to argue against even the most asinine statements.

Grenth is merely your PC’s future self.
Scarlet is your PC’s daughter.
Trahearne your PC’s future husband.
Livia is the daughter of King Doric and Dwayna.
Primordus gave birth to the sun, despite being male.

Etc.

You cannot refute any of these statements, even sillier ones, because of your very argument of “until the franchise is over, anything can be retconned.”

And furthermore, there would be no point at all in documenting or discussing the game’s lore, because anything of it can and would be believed to be false, and every theory out there, no matter how little evidence it has, and how much counter-evidence it has, will still be possible “just because the writers may decide to retcon anything.”

But here’s the thing: ArenaNet is very careful in not retconing their objective truths. The only things that they could be argued to retcon are their subjective truths – such as the origins surrounding Glint. They have not once retconned an objective truth. And Abaddon’s death is an objective truth.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Anyways there is still a possibility that the artifacts, forbidden knowledge, and even surviving servants of Abaddon can still pose a threat to Tyria. They could use any of these to satisfy those who wish for Abaddon’s return yet maintain their “He’s gone” response.

And still he will be gone, thus the original statement of “nothing says Abaddon is dead in GW” is still false.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

You are correct they could if they wanted to. Here’s a thought try using the lore presented to explain why something can or can’t be, instead of relying on the “Oh they said so” excuse. This way one doesn’t look like a complete fool when the decision is changed.

But they wouldn’t be a complete fool. Because they did say so, even if they later decided otherwise.

But Jeff – and other developers – have stressed on multiple year-spanning occasions that they are not going to focus heavily on the story of Abaddon again. Honestly speaking, something akin to either an old remnant of his servants or the Fall of Abaddon fractal is likely all we’ll ever possibly get. Given that they’ve maintained the stance for so long – for five years via mentions – it is unlikely that they’ll break it.

Chances are, the only way for Abaddon to return, will be some new writer replacing the old writers.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

The evidence that conflicts with their statement is the mere opening of the alternative reality flood gates, without any thought towards the possible implications of their opening. They have provided a multitude of ways they could reintroduced Abaddon directly to the story of Guild Wars 2, a few I can think of will technically not break their “He’s gone” statement.

Erm… You’re wrong on this. Y’see, what we see in-game has been “possible futures” and “echoes of reality”. There has yet to be any confirmed existence of alternate realities.

In the former, while travel back and forth is possible, the future is ever changing and thus the possible future will disappear once diverted away; and in this situation, Abaddon is dead in all possible futures, because he died in the past.

In the latter, what we would see – such as in the Fall of Abaddon – is not Abaddon. It is an imperfect clone. And what would be missing, if nothing else, is what makes him a true god (or rather, made) – that indestructible core of magic and divinity. At least, by all indications – I suppose it is possible for the Mists to effectively recreate Abaddon in its full, but even if this is done, depending on what Dessa’s story is, he may be unable to escape that bubble of reality (his “fractal” so to speak).

Which, I should add, creates and interesting observation of the colossus: he leaves the Fractal, something which given by Dessa and the whole respawning (a lore fact) shouldn’t be possible. Indicating that he either isn’t leaving but simply “despawning” or that he was not part of the Fractal in the first place.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Onto the topic of Lore. Lore is presented from an in-game perspective, which means it can be inaccurate or outright wrong as legends in the real world can be.

You are also wrong here. While this is the most common way, especially across other stories/games/whatnot, and is often the only way in other such stories/games/whatnot, it is not so with Guild Wars. ArenaNet frequently gives interviews, answering questions in lore, as well as posting in forums and other places to answer such confusions. This too, counts as lore. And not only that, but it comes from the developers themselves, a “behind the scenes” in what’s happening in the lore, if you will. The whole “Abaddon is dead” statement is such a situation. This is not questionable, it may change since it isn’t in the game and thus isn’t a retcon, but it is an objective truth of the game’s lore until otherwise.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Using available lore sources as counter to hypotheses and theories are expected and seemingly encouraged by story writers, as the debates themselves generate potential plot hooks the writer could use if they are subjugated to the horrible Writer’s Block. However those using “Oh the writer said this character is gone ergo god has spoken.” don’t encourage intellectual debates which could potentially help the writer by providing some inspiration.

However, it would be no different than seeing Abaddon die ourselves, thus making it an objective truth.

Which we did.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

By your very arguments, I can say that Tyria is a world made out of poop and you will have no means of counteracting me.

Careful there Konig there might be a few people on these forums who would leap in agreement to that, and I doubt that is your objective with this statement. Also I should warn you that using my own logic against me may prove to be less effective than anticipated.

Now about your argument, if you want to get technical your statement couldn’t be refuted even if the Guild Wars franchise was over since waste produced by the world’s inhabitants do become part of the soil over time in one way or another.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Your argument makes everything a contested lore fact or speculation. Anything is possible by your argument, and it would be impossible to argue against even the most asinine statements.

From your perspective, I’ll concede that’s mostly my fault how I worded my argument. When it comes to out of universe statements I feel they are contested until that particularly story has concluded due to reasons I already mentioned. Why I don’t feel the same with in-universe statements is because they add something to the story’s world as well well constructed debates. Out of universe statements only seem to provoke sparks within a community as it seems only a few want to have an in-depth debate.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Scarlet is your PC’s daughter.

Well that explains the insanity, sorry everyone it not an Elder Dragon that been whispering in her head.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

You cannot refute any of these statements, even sillier ones, because of your very argument of “until the franchise is over, anything can be retconned.”

Actually I can refute all of them if I wished, just you are able to refute my counter arguments right back.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

And furthermore, there would be no point at all in documenting or discussing the game’s lore, because anything of it can and would be believed to be false, and every theory out there, no matter how little evidence it has, and how much counter-evidence it has, will still be possible “just because the writers may decide to retcon anything.”

Yet even when retcon previously established Lore continues to enhance the story experience, depending on how the retcon is handled. Should we throw out every myth and legend simply because they are inaccurate? Tell me what do out of universe statements enhance in a story? I’m not saying they shouldn’t make out of universe statements I’m actually trying to say that using them as the basis of a counter argument to a debate should be avoided as it doesn’t offer much.

Off topic I’m sensing a reference to certain hypotheses concerning a certain Jungle Dragon that may or may not have a name that starts with an M, which has been very persistent despite your and various others attempts to lay it to rest.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

But here’s the thing: ArenaNet is very careful in not retconing their objective truths. The only things that they could be argued to retcon are their subjective truths – such as the origins surrounding Glint. They have not once retconned an objective truth. And Abaddon’s death is an objective truth.

I’ll concede with this point.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

And still he will be gone, thus the original statement of “nothing says Abaddon is dead in GW” is still false.

I don’t recall actually saying that, but if I have unintentionally imply it please inform me where so I can avoid making the same mistake twice. I have however said that Kormir states his will is broken, which implies he still exists in some form. So he can be resurrected at a later date if they feel they should, and it won’t be breaking their objective truth as he was at one point dead.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

But they wouldn’t be a complete fool. Because they did say so, even if they later decided otherwise.

My reply towards Narcemus was sarcastic in nature, since their reply was also sarcastic. Sometimes my sarcasm is funny other times not so much, hence I try to avoid being sarcastic on forums.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

But Jeff – and other developers – have stressed on multiple year-spanning occasions that they are not going to focus heavily on the story of Abaddon again. Honestly speaking, something akin to either an old remnant of his servants or the Fall of Abaddon fractal is likely all we’ll ever possibly get. Given that they’ve maintained the stance for so long – for five years via mentions – it is unlikely that they’ll break it.

I’ll concede this point as well to you.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Chances are, the only way for Abaddon to return, will be some new writer replacing the old writers.

This has filled me with so much dread.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Erm… You’re wrong on this. Y’see, what we see in-game has been “possible futures” and “echoes of reality”. There has yet to be any confirmed existence of alternate realities.

In the former, while travel back and forth is possible, the future is ever changing and thus the possible future will disappear once diverted away; and in this situation, Abaddon is dead in all possible futures, because he died in the past.

This is one of the many reasons I dislike the inclusion of time travel or alternative realities, I find them to be a colossal headache.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

In the latter, what we would see – such as in the Fall of Abaddon – is not Abaddon. It is an imperfect clone. And what would be missing, if nothing else, is what makes him a true god (or rather, made) – that indestructible core of magic and divinity. At least, by all indications – I suppose it is possible for the Mists to effectively recreate Abaddon in its full, but even if this is done, depending on what Dessa’s story is, he may be unable to escape that bubble of reality (his “fractal” so to speak).

So the Fractals are something akin to a Mesmer’s phantasm? So long as we remain within the sphere of influence they will be tangible but the moment we leave they can no longer effect us. Also I would like to point out the last part of this portion is the point I was trying to make. I never would of thought it possible that Abaddon could simply be recreated from the very Mists themselves, as I accepted the Fractals to be magical phenomena that replays past events to the best of its abilities.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Which, I should add, creates and interesting observation of the colossus: he leaves the Fractal, something which given by Dessa and the whole respawning (a lore fact) shouldn’t be possible. Indicating that he either isn’t leaving but simply “despawning” or that he was not part of the Fractal in the first place.

So that’s why people were mentioning the colossus, I haven’t done any fractals as I’m not level 80.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

You are also wrong here. While this is the most common way, especially across other stories/games/whatnot, and is often the only way in other such stories/games/whatnot, it is not so with Guild Wars. ArenaNet frequently gives interviews, answering questions in lore, as well as posting in forums and other places to answer such confusions. This too, counts as lore. And not only that, but it comes from the developers themselves, a “behind the scenes” in what’s happening in the lore, if you will. The whole “Abaddon is dead” statement is such a situation. This is not questionable, it may change since it isn’t in the game and thus isn’t a retcon, but it is an objective truth of the game’s lore until otherwise.

I’ll concede the entire argument to you, you make excellent arguments even the sillier portions of your argument didn’t detract from your point.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

However, it would be no different than seeing Abaddon die ourselves, thus making it an objective truth.

Which we did.

True it is an objective truth as you have proven, but my point was to use the Lore present in game, such as Kormir stating Abaddon’s will is broken, instead of using an out of game source, such as Anet’s statement “Abaddon’s dead”, generates an intellectual debate that uncovers ideas that maybe even the developers didn’t think of. An example would be how you said it could be possible that Abaddon could be recreated in the mists. A writer could happen on this idea and find it an interesting one. However instead of Abaddon they could use the idea as a means to introduce a brand new god or even resurrect the Elder Dragons in a very interesting way.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

When it comes to out of universe statements I feel they are contested until that particularly story has concluded due to reasons I already mentioned. Why I don’t feel the same with in-universe statements is because they add something to the story’s world as well well constructed debates. Out of universe statements only seem to provoke sparks within a community as it seems only a few want to have an in-depth debate.

I cannot quite understand your logic, and at the same time, I feel it would be impossible to convince you otherwise simply because it’s an opinion and while opinions can be shifted via convincing arguments, that’s a very hard task to do without explicit explanations.

Nonetheless, the out-of-universe statements are presented to us, by the makers of said “universe,” as canon to the universe. True, it may change, but again, by arguing that much without cause for believing it has or will change other than “they may do it” is so flimsy an argument, every professional – or hobbyist – debater would laugh at you.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Actually I can refute all of them if I wished, just you are able to refute my counter arguments right back.

You can try to refute such statements, but because whatever “proof” you may come up with can just be hand-waved away as “it will change” then you can never actually refute it. In that, I mean, you can never prove such statements wrong.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Should we throw out every myth and legend simply because they are inaccurate? Tell me what do out of universe statements enhance in a story?

I don’t think I ever said we should throw out every myth and legend simply because they are inaccurate. In fact, I would argue otherwise. While they may be inaccurate from an objective truth, they show the belief and misinterpretation of characters in the world, making it feel more real.

As to your second question of what an OOU statement does to enchance a story. Well, for example, it was highly theorize there was a tie between the Shadow Arm and the White Mantle, due to shared skins; similarly there was theorizing that the Enchanted armors in the Crystal Desert and the Mursaat were related, because of similar skins again. This was back with Prophecies. Both theories were debunked by developers explaining there’s no lore tie. This stops people from trying to theorize how things that are not, actually are, and pushes people into theorizing into a different direction.

Another example: it was stated, out of universe, that Primordus has not been seen to corrupt a living being – but can. This proves that the Destroyer Queen is, in fact, not a corrupted pregnant being like one of the two theories the mentors present, but it also opens the theory for the Imbued Grawl Shaman in Volcanic Fractals to be somehow tied to Primordus (furthered by how it wields a Destroyer Bow).

Yet another example is the clarification of how each Elder Dragon, and their champions, corrupt differently. Expanding on how they are similar yet different. This opens up the theory that Kuunavang may be tied to the Elder Dragons, and shows how, even though not shown in-game, we now know that the Elder Dragons are capable of corrupting the same way, but choose not to – which further hints at different personalities to the Elder Dragons. Personalities that are not shown in the game. This opens up a lot of perspectives and views into the Elder Dragons not possible to know from just the game and novels.

These are just some examples. Minor ones, even.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

I’m actually trying to say that using them as the basis of a counter argument to a debate should be avoided as it doesn’t offer much.

I fail to see how an OOU statement “doesn’t offer much” when being used to counter a theory. It holds as much merit – if not more – than an IU statement. While not presented in the games or novels, it comes from the makers of the story. They know what is, and what isn’t, in the story. Even if they have not yet shown it – or they did, but failed to portray their point. It is as much valid as any in-game statement, to say the least.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Off topic I’m sensing a reference to certain hypotheses concerning a certain Jungle Dragon that may or may not have a name that starts with an M, which has been very persistent despite your and various others attempts to lay it to rest.

There are thousands of outright ridiculous theories that have been debunked which can be brought back by your argument and the act of hand-waving the counter-evidence as “it will be retconned.” I referenced no specific one.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

I don’t recall actually saying that, but if I have unintentionally imply it please inform me where so I can avoid making the same mistake twice. I have however said that Kormir states his will is broken, which implies he still exists in some form. So he can be resurrected at a later date if they feel they should, and it won’t be breaking their objective truth as he was at one point dead.

I never said you said it. It was said here, by Assassin X. You then responded to Narcemus explaining that Abaddon is, in fact, dead.

And for your argument: Kormir’s statement is that Abaddon’s thoughts and power is within her; his “will” is broken, because he is gone. He is no longer an individual, just disjointed thoughts – memories, if you will. Furthermore, Olias also says that Abaddon is dead and will not return – Grenth will ensure he won’t, even if he could.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

This is one of the many reasons I dislike the inclusion of time travel or alternative realities, I find them to be a colossal headache.

Nonetheless, there is still a very fine difference between time travel, possible futures, and alternate realities.

The last has yet to exist in the GWverse.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

So the Fractals are something akin to a Mesmer’s phantasm? So long as we remain within the sphere of influence they will be tangible but the moment we leave they can no longer effect us. Also I would like to point out the last part of this portion is the point I was trying to make. I never would of thought it possible that Abaddon could simply be recreated from the very Mists themselves, as I accepted the Fractals to be magical phenomena that replays past events to the best of its abilities.

Erm… Highly unknown subject that, imo, deviates too much from the topic at hand.

But my very point is that Abaddon – the one from GW1, the one from Tyrian history, the erased Sixth God – will never return. He may be copied, he may be imitated, but Abaddon himself will never return. Ever.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

So that’s why people were mentioning the colossus, I haven’t done any fractals as I’m not level 80.

You realize you get upscaled, right?

Darkbattlemage.9612:

True it is an objective truth as you have proven, but my point was to use the Lore present in game, such as Kormir stating Abaddon’s will is broken, instead of using an out of game source, such as Anet’s statement “Abaddon’s dead”, generates an intellectual debate that uncovers ideas that maybe even the developers didn’t think of. An example would be how you said it could be possible that Abaddon could be recreated in the mists. A writer could happen on this idea and find it an interesting one. However instead of Abaddon they could use the idea as a means to introduce a brand new god or even resurrect the Elder Dragons in a very interesting way.

I think that, even with developer statements debunking ideas, such theories will still spring out – simply because the theory makers don’t know of such statements.

Same reason why we continuously see “sylvari are dragon minions” and “Six Gods are the Elder Dragons” – because the theorymakers, each time someone new, does not know the counter-evidence that debunk the claims fully, and thinks that they came up with something new since they came up with it on their own.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

There are thousands of outright ridiculous theories that have been debunked which can be brought back by your argument and the act of hand-waving the counter-evidence as “it will be retconned.” I referenced no specific one.

True, they could do that. But I don’t think they need to use my flawed logic to continue defending their hypotheses and theories, as evident by how persistent they proven before I posted this argument.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

I never said you said it. It was said here, by Assassin X. You then responded to Narcemus explaining that Abaddon is, in fact, dead.

Oh I misunderstood.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

And for your argument: Kormir’s statement is that Abaddon’s thoughts and power is within her; his “will” is broken, because he is gone. He is no longer an individual, just disjointed thoughts – memories, if you will. Furthermore, Olias also says that Abaddon is dead and will not return – Grenth will ensure he won’t, even if he could.

I wasn’t aware of Olias statement, thank you for sharing that.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Erm… Highly unknown subject that, imo, deviates too much from the topic at hand.

True it is going off topic, a bad habit of mine.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

You realize you get upscaled, right?

Actually I didn’t know that, I was led to believe the content wasn’t scaled for those below level 80.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

I think that, even with developer statements debunking ideas, such theories will still spring out – simply because the theory makers don’t know of such statements.

True these hypotheses and theories do still form regardless of what anyone says. It just to me more can be contributed to the debate using in game lore than out of game lore in the case of Abaddon. All Anet has said is that he’s dead, the same thing they said about Zhaitan. They haven’t said, at least that anyone has pointed out, they are beyond resurrection.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

True, they could do that. But I don’t think they need to use my flawed logic to continue defending their hypotheses and theories, as evident by how persistent they proven before I posted this argument.

Though my point was in that they could, not that they would nor should. Anyone can use your argument, and fail to be bashed down, because honestly it’s unknown (unless you’re a bonafide actual seer and can read the future).

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Actually I didn’t know that, I was led to believe the content wasn’t scaled for those below level 80.

It’s like most Living World content updates, where the set level is 80, but any character underleveled is upscaled – the content isn’t downscaled at all, and you’ll still be underpowered compared to lvl 80s, but you can participate – and survive, if good enough.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

True these hypotheses and theories do still form regardless of what anyone says. It just to me more can be contributed to the debate using in game lore than out of game lore in the case of Abaddon. All Anet has said is that he’s dead, the same thing they said about Zhaitan. They haven’t said, at least that anyone has pointed out, they are beyond resurrection.

It is never said in-game why Abaddon was imprisoned (or rather, wasn’t until GW2). However, it was out of game, as well as explaining why he went into the war rather than just stating that he did (which is all that’s said in GW2 – that he gifted magic, then went to war and lost). Out of game, it is explained not only before GW2 for the just mentioned, that he was tasked with gifting magic, did so too freely, and when it was revoked it was, in fact, the Margonites who first acted out, and the Forgotten retaliated in war; then Abaddon joined in, defending his worshipers from being slaughtered for a mere desecration of the Temple of the Six Gods, followed by the other gods. Though this is from Asian lore records, and a lot of their lore is altered from ours because China – as one place – has regulations that would otherwise ban the game from their country if the lore wasn’t changed.

This, by far, expands people’s understanding and capabilities of debate. Stating that Abaddon is dead, does not stiffen, but instead redirects the theories. In the “okay, so not Abaddon… then what about this!” direction.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Though my point was in that they could, not that they would nor should. Anyone can use your argument, and fail to be bashed down, because honestly it’s unknown (unless you’re a bonafide actual seer and can read the future).

I’ll concede the entire argument to you. Also I thought the Seers had become extinct….

Konig Des Todes.2086:

It’s like most Living World content updates, where the set level is 80, but any character underleveled is upscaled – the content isn’t downscaled at all, and you’ll still be underpowered compared to lvl 80s, but you can participate – and survive, if good enough.

Oh ok thank you for explaining.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

It is never said in-game why Abaddon was imprisoned (or rather, wasn’t until GW2). However, it was out of game, as well as explaining why he went into the war rather than just stating that he did (which is all that’s said in GW2 – that he gifted magic, then went to war and lost). Out of game, it is explained not only before GW2 for the just mentioned, that he was tasked with gifting magic, did so too freely, and when it was revoked it was, in fact, the Margonites who first acted out, and the Forgotten retaliated in war; then Abaddon joined in, defending his worshipers from being slaughtered for a mere desecration of the Temple of the Six Gods, followed by the other gods. Though this is from Asian lore records, and a lot of their lore is altered from ours because China – as one place – has regulations that would otherwise ban the game from their country if the lore wasn’t changed.

I thought there were pieces you could find in the actual game that retold what was in the manuals. I also forgot about the manuals when I wrote the comment, else I would of written in-universe instead of in-game.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

This, by far, expands people’s understanding and capabilities of debate. Stating that Abaddon is dead, does not stiffen, but instead redirects the theories. In the “okay, so not Abaddon… then what about this!” direction.

Now only if the “Sylvari are Dragon Minions.” topics can be just as easily moved towards other directions.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

I thought there were pieces you could find in the actual game that retold what was in the manuals. I also forgot about the manuals when I wrote the comment, else I would of written in-universe instead of in-game.

What I explained wasn’t in the manuals either, actually. The manuals not once mention Abaddon – this is the closest you get in any of the manuals. In game, all you get is mentions such as in The Mouth of Torment’s description stating that Abaddon was once a god, and that he fought the other five gods with his Margonite followers, was beaten at where the Mouth of Torment is now and imprisoned in the Realm of Torment. There was, in fact, never an explanation for why Abaddon rebelled in-game – until Temple of the Forgotten God and Orrian History Scrolls in GW2. All that came from out-of-game sources just like the mentions that Abaddon is dead.

It was only in pre-NF-release promotional lore pieces distributed solely to the Asian market. They received a lot more such pieces than EU/NA did, especially with Factions as that was predictably a touchy subject for them (I don’t really get it, but I’m not Asian and thus don’t hold those strong patriotism and aggressiveness to neighboring countries that they seem to retain from their old and recent histories).

Konig Des Todes.2086:

It was only in pre-NF-release promotional lore pieces distributed solely to the Asian market.

Oh I wasn’t aware of there being any exclusive lore material, thank you for explaining.