Guild Wars 2

I don’t think it’s fair to claim that we want GW2 to become more like GoT or more like LoTR. These are complex and well designed fantasy worlds in a different league than GW. Killing more characters does not make it more like GoT, and because it is a heroic story do not make it more like LoTR.

GW will never be anywhere near any of these stories. It’s understandable, and I don’t think drawing similarities are fair towards the writers of GW. They are not that talented and are also writing for a game in which story can’t be delivered in a good way.

He is literally talking about the political system he will take on in the first chapter of the Prince, where he defines the basic of the rest of his writing.

Well… yes? As I mentioned, he actually wrote another book called The Discourses on Livy which is dedicated to the whole idea of the Roman Republic

I will leave this thread now…

CHIPS.6018:

fenre.7891:

I don’t see why Machiavelli is used in this context. Machiavelli was not interested in all forms of state, and not in all forms of power. He was mostly interested in the dynamics of illegitimate power. Hereditary monarchy and other states whose authority was legitimate were in no interest for him. That is evident when you see who The Prince actually is, as is it mostly based on a person he knew personally, named Caesar Borgia, who assassinated his older brother and murdered the husband of his sister.

Also, there is used a lot of quotes from websites to back arguments up here. I absolutely hate using those sites, because they usually take something juicy, and put it out completely out of context.

Machiavelli was a pessimist and had a very pessimistic view on the human nature. However, he is not an extremist and in both the Prince and in the Discourses Machiavelli writes numerous passages were he counsels rulers to be temperate, not uselessly cruel.

Most importantly, stop using Machiavelli like its a statement of fact. In Queen Jennahs example, its not something we want to build up arguments around, because she simply is not a leader in the Machiavellian world. If it was used it in explanation of Charr-relations, then I could follow the logic more.

Machiavelli’s opinion is this: If you don’t have power yet, act like Caesar Borgia to seize power. If you already have power, defend yourself against guys like Caesar Borgia.

Queen Jennah is the latter case.

“Pessimistic view on human nature” isn’t a bad thing. The LA’s council is a clear example:

Players: Scarlet is coming to attack LA!!!
LA Council: No she won’t! We are optimistic about the future. Nothing bad will ever happen. “My Little Pony!”
Players: Great. Now we have to clean up your mess.

Kryta is indeed Machiavellian. Caudecus is as Machiavellian as it gets. Queen Jennah will be foolish not to remove this threat asap.

You miss my point. Because of his view on the human nature it tells us what kind of political system you will preach. My main question is why we are talking about Machiavelli, and not Plato, St.Augustine, John of Salisbury, Marsilio of Padua, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquiu, Hume, Rousseau, Burke, Kant etc etc. All these had different political system that in their eyes would be ideal, and none of them is more right than the other one.

I for example want to erase your Prince ideal with a Krytan nation based on Schumpeters elite society. Where the Queen is overthrown and there is installed a way to elect the top leaders. This is however not a democracy in the classical sense, rule by the people, but just a rule approved by the people. The mechanism to make competent bureaucrats elected will make them legitimate. It would be a competitive elitism. Would it be “better” then Machiavellian version? Well, it would have elements from Kant and others when it comes to a democratic society and research shows that democracy is more capable to be fighting wars than other nations (source: almost everything in the academic field of Political Science discussing the Democratic Peace)

I don’t want to write much about this, since it completely the wrong place to do it.
I agree however that the GW-universe needs more depth when it comes to the political stage.
Introducing an oversimplified version of Machiavelli is however not the way to go.

Regarding your last point, act of one man does not define a system.

I don’t see why Machiavelli is used in this context. Machiavelli was not interested in all forms of state, and not in all forms of power. He was mostly interested in the dynamics of illegitimate power. Hereditary monarchy and other states whose authority was legitimate were in no interest for him. That is evident when you see who The Prince actually is, as is it mostly based on a person he knew personally, named Caesar Borgia, who assassinated his older brother and murdered the husband of his sister.

Also, there is used a lot of quotes from websites to back arguments up here. I absolutely hate using those sites, because they usually take something juicy, and put it out completely out of context.

Machiavelli was a pessimist and had a very pessimistic view on the human nature. However, he is not an extremist and in both the Prince and in the Discourses Machiavelli writes numerous passages were he counsels rulers to be temperate, not uselessly cruel.

Most importantly, stop using Machiavelli like its a statement of fact. In Queen Jennahs example, its not something we want to build up arguments around, because she simply is not a leader in the Machiavellian world. If it was used it in explanation of Charr-relations, then I could follow the logic more.

No, I don’t think we can see anyone. However, with the integration in human society, the ideas are most likely present in Kryta.

The GW-universe is quite interesting when it comes to politics and diplomacy, and there is a good framework to actually work with. The ideological, political and cultural differences in Tyria are massive, and interesting political competition should be a consequence of this.

One example would be a focus of the separatists. Influenced by Lion’s Arch way of govern, the Separatists in Kryta are now fighting for a semi-democratic government, since they are of that opinion that most of the people in Kryta are against the alliance with the Charr. If people would have a say in how the state was govern, the human nation would be far more aggressive in their foreign policy. To get support for this movement, the Separatists are using nationalistic propaganda which is aiming at “trying to restore the greatness in the human race once again”.

This would be interesting. As a player, wouldn’t you agree with the Separatists that the people should have a say in the way they are govern? Or, do you see the dangers with suddenly open up for mass politics which could actually lead to a more dangerous and aggressive human nation? There could also be a split inside the Separatist movement. Two forces which are fighting for the same: democracy, but are different in their motivation: hate for Charr vs. believe in each person’s right for a vote. In other words: a classical example of a democratization which could lead to a very unstable nation in the immediately aftermath after overthrowing the old regime.

The other races are also very interested in the development in the nation in the centre of Tyria. A stable human nation is in everyone’s interest, and they are therefore aiming at supporting the Queen to try to calm down the masses. A revolution is the last thing they want, since it would damage the fight against the dragons, as well as a more direct threat since it would destabilize the whole regions trade and ideological thinking.

This is just an bad example. Meaning of this was just to try to show that they can do so much interesting things. Are they capable of doing this is something that I’m not so sure of.

It’s a while since I’ve been working with Mearsheimer, Waltz and other inside the realism-tradition, so I’m a little rusty (I’m more inside the issues around democratization and war-theories in IR). However, there is no doubt in my mind that the writers inside the GW-universe have this kind of world in mind when writing about the Charr-human-relations (not consciously).

First of all, there is never peace in this setting. There is only armistice. “Peace” in the sense we understand it (and like social constructivists and liberalists see it) will probably never exist in Tyria as it is now, because we are not only talking about states here, but also different races. In that sense, no, I don’t think there will ever be peace between the Charr and the humans as it is now, and therefore they are also in an intense security dilemma. I do believe however that a security dilemma is possible to escape and that a longer armistice is possible. War is never inevitable, not even in a Hobbsian world.

However, defensive build-up is a threat and it would be a dangerous game to play. That’s one of the main points in the Security Dilemma: “In international politics, however, one state’s gain in security often inadvertently threatens other” (Jervis 1978, see page 170 for examples). There are many ways cooperation and escapes from the Security Dilemma are achieved in a realist world which is far more effective than a defensive build-up for a weaker military state, which the humans definitively are.

How humans will react to Charr build-up is therefore an interesting thought. Your conclusion that it should lead to a defensive build-up is not wrong in itself, but it would not solve the problem. In my view, it would be suicide for the humans since they don’t have the capability to compete military with a society like the Charr. Again, there are other ways out of this problem, which has been discussed in length.

Another interesting thought is that Charr build-up would lead to balancing from the other races. A military hegemony by the Charr is not possible, since that would be a direct threat to the other races.

In all this, the most interesting development in International Politics in Tyria in recent years and also a way out of the Security Dilemma that exists is the Pact. The Pact could actually lead Tyria in a new area of IP. It could take Tyria out of the world of realism, to a more world of liberalism. If the Pact develop, it could mitigate the Security Dilemma between the humans and the Charr in a big way, in the same way the ECSC did. The Pact is one way that Tyria could go towards a deeper peace. However, it would not be easy.

PS: “USA and USSR were friends during WWII. That’s how it works. Politics”. That statement is way too simple. There are literally thousands of research articles and books dedicated to causes and escapes from the Cold War. Your “conclusion” here that the only outcome from the Security and the Prisoners Dilemma that existed after the Second World War was the arms race is actually not politics. It’s just history

CHIPS.6018:

They don’t have to call it anti tank trenches. They can just call them trenches, which would be useful against Elder Dragon minions. There are always ways around it. Its just politics.

At the end of the day, humans are only building defensive constructions. The Charrs are building offensive war machines. Who is the aggressor here?

You’re missing the point. Since the Charr could never know all of the humans intentions, building defenses in a contested area would trigger a security dilemma which would lead the humans to contribute to an arms race.

There is a difference in Charr society and the human society. The Charr don’t care if they are the aggressors or not. As I said earlier, the Charr society is in many ways always in an arms race almost with their selves. Questions like you asked is therefore useless in a world of realpolitik. What I argued was that looking at it from the humans in Tyria, the possible gains from this is not enough to actually take the risks. It does not make diplomatic sense.

What they could do, was to invite Charr engineers and make them part of the building of the defenses directly aimed at the minions of the elder dragons. That could mitigate the effect of a possible security dilemma. However, it could trigger the spiral of arms race as well.

Politics is not just politics; it’s never that easy.

CHIPS.6018:

fenre.7891:

CHIPS.6018:

@ Konig

These constructions will take a long time to complete. If peace talk breaks down, it will be too late to construct them. So they have to be built now during peace times.

This creates problem. Why would the Charr allow the humans to start building up massive defenses in an area which is contested between the two nations? In the eyes of realpolitik, which is mostly how the Charr view of IP (I get the impression of) an act to try to alter the status-quo on the border would be a sign of aggression.
And why would the humans start building up defenses which could ruin a peace talk?

The Charrs themselves are building up giant tanks and other weapons in the Black Citadal. Their “excuse” was that these are to be used against the Elder Dragons. It will be the same excuse that Ebonhawke will use. The Elder Dragons and its minions may very well attack Ebonhawke next.

Still, I don’t see why the Charr should allow this. Anti tank trenches, which was your first point, is directly aimed at counter the Charr. Defenses directly aimed to counter the threat of the elder dragons would be a more important and also the most useful way of defending Ebonhawke (anti tank trenches would be no use here). Anti-air inside Ebonhawke, your 3 point, would make sense though.

Trying to bolster their defenses in Ebonhawke the way you said would lead to the classical security dilemma, as the Charr would not exactly know the intentions of the humans with the defenses. It could lead to an arms race, and then the question the human leaders have to ask themselves is: what would happen if the Charr took countermeasures, and then started to take action to counter the defenses in Ebonhawke? Could this lead the Charr to be more aggressive in future diplomatic engagements?

I my view, the possible gains from a bolster of the defenses in Ebonhawke do not outweigh the possible dangers of it. Why in the world would the humans try to start (or contribute to, as the Charr is always in an arms race because of how their government is structured) an arms race with the Charr, which would probably be the outcome?

CHIPS.6018:

@ Konig

These constructions will take a long time to complete. If peace talk breaks down, it will be too late to construct them. So they have to be built now during peace times.

This creates problem. Why would the Charr allow the humans to start building up massive defenses in an area which is contested between the two nations? In the eyes of realpolitik, which is mostly how the Charr view of IP (I get the impression of) an act to try to alter the status-quo on the border would be a sign of aggression.
And why would the humans start building up defenses which could ruin a peace talk?

I’m not the player that actually plays this game that much, and I’m sorry if this have been discussed before, but it really became obvious to me today, when I decided that I wanted to check out the Buried Achieves and on the way get the jumping puzzle- achievement.

I’m the kind of person who really gets invested in the stories when I play, and that was also the case with Guild Wars 1.

Now, why am I posting this? Well, it is because I came over a video of Elder Scrolls Online. Just to state this right now, I have no plans in playing that game. However, I found something that I really liked about it, namely books. As I saw in the video, the player could find these in-game books around (like in Morrowind and Oblivion) and get an inside about one person, place or whatever.

As I said, today I went to the Buried Achieves and found out that the only thing waiting for me there was a veteran and a chest. There was really nothing else, and I was kind of hoping that there was some object I could interact with, something like in the Vizier’s Tower. I went from that place with no idea what it was or what it had been.

I talked to a friend of mine who had played GW2 in the start, but he lost interest in the game. He said that arena-net was planning to add in-game books that a player could find and through them build up a more compelling and complex world. However, they decided not to do this. Is this true, and if so, why in the world would they decide not to do this? For me, it would have been an amazing addition for people, like me, who does not really care about the green items I get from the chest, but more about the stories and the world.

I would have loved to see her fail in some way, or how she reacted to a failure by one of her accomplices.

For example, When I first did hear that Scarlet was part of the fractal of Thaumanova Reactor, I thought that the explosion was something that really set her plans back a little. The more I thought about this, the more I got excited, because I wanted to see how she reacted to this. I felt that the whole character we know is just a play, and behind that is a really ruthless character who does not accept failure, not from herself or others.

this of course was just a silly thought, because Scarlet did of course not face failure since everything she and we do just is “after her plan”

I dont play this game very often. To be honest, I just pop in to check what the newest patch is all about and if there is any interesting stories developing since I’ve very good memories from GW1 and Proph.
I shouldnt really complain, since I’m not paying for these updates, and Im not really that invested in the game. However, I’m sad to see the big potetial this world have be wasted on a storyline like the one we have seen.

For the first time in my GW-years, I’m completly uninterested in this storyline and since it didnt move the plot any further, I will not check on the other ones.

Of course is that the difference, but they didn’t know that. In their view, it was as real as the Deep Sea-dragon. But this was not really the point. The point was that even when superstitions and hostile arctic water was against them, they did it. With much less technology then what was present later in Europe, as well as in GW.

Yes, the races were almost desperate which exactly my point is. In a period with massive turmoil, nations and other seek a way out. It’s extremely competitive. I mean, the whole exploration and colonization in the real world was established in a period that is convenient to think of as the Wars of Religion. It was truly a realism-world: anarchy with everyone fighting for survival and truly a period that is similar to Thomas Hobbes state of nature. In this mixture, exploration and finding resources was not only convenient, but it was the matter of survival. In this view, I just can’t really accept the idea that they just didn’t explore and try to find important natural resources necessarily to fight a threat as big as the elder dragons.

But yeah, maybe we’ll get more info about this in the future. Now that Zhaitan is out of the picture and the massive focus on trade and commerce in the living story, there is absolutely no reason why exploration in the coming years should just explode. Even though I don’t really think this will happen, since it’s a fantasy-world and don’t really explore a lot of consequences and important structural processes, I really hope it would.

Jörmungandr was basically an elder dragon: a creature that was destined to destroy the world and the story of Tor fighting this creature was one of the most popular stories. Even so, they decided to sail over one of the most hostile oceans in the world. And believe me, that oceans danger is real as we speak.

Yes, there were limitations for the humans (and for the other races) in GW. But don’t tell me danger and limitations are not the case when it comes to our human history as well. I mean, the earlier humans and the migration pattern is more of a feat then exploring in GW-universe.

The Primeval Dynasty lasted hundreds of years, and during that time they colonized Kryta. Since water was mainly the most important resource, it just doesn’t make sense the lack of exploration during that time. They actually decided to explore and settle more desolate places inwards then exploring the coastal areas further east. Is there anything that answer why this didn’t happen?

And today, there is huge scientific competition in Tyria, within the Asura and the Durmand Priory. There has been established (I think with the different in-game pictures) that the planet is round. Is this made by calculations like Aristotle, and if so, why isn’t there someone challenging this notion, or testing it? In my view, there is a scientific hunger, as well as a deep need for resources that should have contributed to a huge focus on exploration and colonization. The danger of the elder dragons should not be limits on this, but rather something that pushed it forward. For example the humans have lost Ascalon and Orr, and their last stand in Tyria (continent) is Kryta. Why haven’t then the humans looked for expansion in areas like the western coast from Rata Sum? (dangerous area with plants etc. but I doubt its more dangerous than having one of your main cities attacked by a massive undead horde)

There is a reason for the stagnation of the Chinese dynasty and why the exploration of Zheng He was stopped: there was no need for it. But no, there was not the superpower and the most “stable” nation that went on to have the age of discovery and the scientific revolution, it was the small and limited nations of Europe.

Also, what about the Zephyrites? Are there any information about if they know anything about the world outside?

Note: I’m not the most intensely GW-player, but this has been on my mind for a while and therefore I thought I could ask here to see if there were any theory/reasons behind this.

My main question is: Why do we know so little about Tyria (planet) beside Tyria (continent), Elona and Cantha?

For me, it just doesn’t make any sense that there is so little knowledge about the outside world, and I was wondering if there is any cheap lore behind this fact.

The reason why this does not make sense for me is because of our own history and the age of discovery that happened in Europe during the 15th century. The age of discovery was not however the beginning of exploration: the desire to simply explore the unknown and discover new knowledge is a typical human trait, and therefore exploration has been very much present throughout the entire human history.

In GW the technology is there (we’ve been traveling to Cantha, and there was colonization of Elona a long time ago), there are trading companies that are pushing boundaries (Consortium pushed to Southsun Cove to make it a….. vacation resort, instead of pushing for real profit) and the biggest reason is there, namely competition. Competition breeds innovation and scientific evolution. For example, there is no accident that the birth of the scientific revolution happened in renaissance Northern-Italy where there were long traditions of independence and fierce competitions, immortalized by Machiavelli’s famous book. Competition was also one of the main reasons for the age of discovery and colonization as the need for resources in a highly competitive Europe was needed.

Everything in GW is there. People could say that; hey, these are things pushing for exploration in our world, not in Tyria. But then they miss the fact that through playing GW1 and 2, you would see that these things are present in the Tyrian world. The humans in Tyria are not different when it comes to their human nature then us. What influences their choices are the same as the one in our world.

However, a-net are really making a mess of this fact when it comes to the new addition of the Zephyrites.

These guys are using their time to roam the skies of Tyria with airships. When stating this, there is no reason that this should mean Tyria the continent, and not Tyria the world. I mean, why in the world would they not go around on the planet when they have the possibility to do so? Also, we know that most of the people are from Elona and Cantha, so that mean they are at least traveling to these areas (?). Then again, why not move further east, or west, or whatever?

When they are going around to other places not seen before, do we actually have to believe that these guys don’t feel the urge to check out what really is down there? Questions like; are there any civilizations here? Is there anything we could trade? Etc. They should have some knowledge about different region of the world which we’ve never visited in GW1 and 2.

Then, why aren’t they sharing these things with us, the players? (Maybe they do, I haven’t ducked really into this addition, and if they do, then I’m sorry) The easy way out of it would be the very immature because they don’t want to share the knowledge or something like that. However, as they are so based upon trade, why wouldn’t they trade knowledge?

One answer to this could be simply: because of the elder dragons no one wants to go outside their comfort zone and they see exploration as very dangerous. As that was not the case with our own history. In the Norse mythology, they believed a sea serpent named Jörmungandr lived in the ocean. They also believed on something many probably know, named as Kraken. Still, they went over the north-Atlantic Ocean and discovered America.