Guild Wars 2

Absolutely, my purpose isn’t to state that norn have no weakness or that charr have no chance. Norn may be more vulnerable during shapechange. Charr may be able to take advantage of that moment depending on how the fight goes. maybe the norn tries to knock the charr away before changing and maybe the charr recovers quicker than the norn expected. the details of the fight could go a million ways. That’s why Im only speaking to what the tendancies would be.

side note: Sumo wrestling does a lot of strength training in order to man handle your opponent. Both eastern and western wrestling rely on strength as well as technique. And tiger kung foo relies on strength of hand and forarm in order to reach in and rip tendon and muscle from bone.

edit: can’t put the “f” and the “u” together :P

Burnfall.9573:

Perma-stealth, Perma-mobility, Perma-Everything, Unlimited Condition removal in stealth, OP Outrageous Bursts.

Wait, this is the 6/6/6/6/6 build?

I didn’t think we were talking about game mechanics here. I was under the impression that this was a lore conversation. In lore, the SotW live within the norn. It is part of who they are. Part of what drives them. So your scenario of a charr having a gun or using sand is equally possible that a norn can do the same thing. So no advantage as far as having a gun or having sand is concerned because they both have guns and access to sand.

Strength alone absolutely does not make a killing blow but you miss the point entirely. Every advantage a charr hads access to in a one on one encounter, a norn also potentially has access to. The only difference is that in addintion to all the advanatges that both the charr and the norn share, the norn has immense strength to supplement all it’s advanatges. That puts the charr at a severe disadvantage because strength is such a versatile and effective tool.

edit: many martial arts rely on greater strength and no rules street fights are often determined by strength. The modern military emphasizes strength as an important tool. the benefit is undeniable.

The message the movie of the little martial artist beating big guys who also know how to fight is is that they are so far beyond those people in skill that they can overcome the strength advantage. That’s what makes them heroic. and that’s what makes it so impressive when smaller fighters beat bigger fighters.

Rouven.7409:

A norn does not have access to fangs and claws.

In general my post was towards the previous one (strength and size), but again here my bet would be that a charr is faster.

A norn doesn’t have access to fangs and claws? Their official description states “The norn are a valiant race of huge, shape-shifting barbarians”. That means the ability to grow fangs and claws is part of who they are. How can you justify ignoring it?

Charr may actually be a little faster. Do we have any evidence that this speed is enough to be a game changer? That it is enough to generally sway favor into charr advantage? When the charr and norn did actually fight, it wasn’t enough.

This tells me that any slight speed advantage only delays the inevitable of the charr eventually getting hit with a killing blow because the norn strength advantage makes every strike a potential killing blow.

Norn have quite a bit of will power. If the Spirits of the Wild had not interviened, the norn would have keep throwing themselves at Jormag until they were extinct. And the general description of the norn is thus:

“They live each day as if it were their last, for there is glory in danger, and the norn attain immortality when their great feats are celebrated by their descendents and sung by skaalds around the lodge fires.” https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/races/norn/

Those other variables you are talking about are even across the board. One on one, a charr and a norn have access to the same weapons. Including access to fangs and claws. The only real difference is the enormous strength advantage of the norn.

“Look up, Valiant. Do you see those blue fruit? When you awoke, you were lowered from the boughs by the Pale Tree.” -Mender Serimon

edit: and as Konig said, the fact that some don’t survive was one of the first things we learned before the game came out.

Duke Nukem.6783:

even if these complaints of mine describe seperate things about a few theif builds they are still OP seperate and need attention

but im afraid thats not the case i see most of them all at once

Please elaborate. Which super-build are these thieves using so I can start playing mine again?

It seems pretty certain that there is a connection. But it may not be an ED connection. perhaps it’s a god connection. More specifically, it may be a link with Melandru that allows sylvari to call upon the druids. or to call upon a specific group of druids. ………. Or to call upon the spirit of the druids that they used to be >.>

I would say that it would definitely confirm some kind of connection. We just don’t know the details….yet.

Obsidian.1328:

Then why did you say, “The fact that it is only one side to view from means it is situational” ?

Because it is only one way of looking at it. meaning that there are others.

The entirety is their home. Like I said, Ascalon was never the Charr homelands until last year. Willfully “forgetting” how things were because they’ve been rewritten only changes it in your mind, not how it really is/was. Arguing artistic integrity is the point, and is a lore conversation. You can’t separate the two because the lore is birthed inside someone’s mind, and unlike RL doesn’t exist on its own. In an artistic creation like fantasy writing, how something was intended or originally created trumps how that same thing exists today.

Humans aren’t even from Tyria, technically nothing belongs to them here. So I suppose if we had it your way, all humans should leave the planet. The point of that dialogue from the Manuscripts is to set up the decline of humanity by introducing methods of guilt and irresponsibility to explain why humans are no longer the “golden children” of Tyria. Proph, Factions, and NF would be reeeeeally boring is it all existed in the golden age of humanity. The Guild Wars themselves are meant to be a lesson to humanity on the folly of their ways. They needed to include a sense of foreboding and conflict to make the story any fun, dude.

I have it my way. That claims of land really have nothing to do with who was there first hundreds of years ago. Only who currently has it now and who needs to sacrifice their life to hold onto what they do have.

But you contradict yourself. GW1 established that humanity took that land from someone else. No matter who they took it from, it didn’t start as theirs. So they can’t cry when it is already taken by someone else. So really, if you have it your way, charr don’t get the land because they didn’t definitely own it first in GW1 but we definitely know that humanity didn’t own it first either. You want to have your cake and eat it too but it can only be a contradiction. With arguments that can only rest on double standards.

redslion.9675:

Dustfinger.9510:

Eric: We don’t feel that this advantage is significant once people become more familiar with the game.

http://guildwars2.pl/about_lore_and_mechanics_with_eric_flannum_guildwarspl_exclusive,a545

That’s because once people become more familiar with the game, they roll min sized asura.

I did it as a GS warrior, coming from a max sized norn, and my movement control greatly improved. And I can land more hits. And I have more battle awareness.

Yes. That must have been what they meant.

Teef will always be OP when decribed as the totality of every build rolled into one mega build and compared to any one build of any other class.

It could be anything. All dependant on your individuality. Do you use your strength or your cunning as your main tool?

Rouven.7409:

Some will laugh behind your back, some will be jealous, some will respect your choices.

This. How someone handles your personality and qualities will all depend on their personality and qualities.

We do have confirmation that : “the two races allowed one another passage and trade, while keeping their borders secure. Occasionally, a warband (or a Norn hunter) might cross the line into the other’s land, only to be cut down without prejudice…but these skirmishes do not disrupt the accord reached by mutual consent between these nations.”

Super strength and a culture of one on one training doesn’t factor in?

saying equal height is the main variable when superstrength is involved is like saying I can arm wrestle spiderman evenly because our arms are the same size.

In the sylvaris case, their sexual desires would be no different than any other intimate, pleasurable activity they can share with a loved one. Tickeling, sitting around a fire telling stories, and intercourse. All are there to share an experience cement bonds.

for them, the worse type of cheating would be emotional cheating. because they have no alternative animalistic reproductive drive to blame it on. So any intimate bonding would come from an emotional connection.

The “demon” link says: “Demons are malicious creatures born from shards of existence within the Mists that have turned corrupted.”

that doesn’t necessarily mean a being needs to be made and then twisted. But a shard of reality definitely needs to be corrupted in order to create the demon the way it is. So the corruption is necessary.

I think the semantics of razah is important because labeling him as a demon is misleading. and it will only cause problems later on if we do get confirmation of where the ED’s come from.

e.g.: Say we know they come from the mists. They still might not be demons since a demon has a specific goal. To feast on suffering and despair. Do the ED’s do this or are they simply hungry for magic?

Tamias.7059:

It seems that this is saying that Razah is physiologically identical to demons, but not called a demon purely because of his personality and attitude. So the definition of a demon would seem to be something created from the Mists, but also “evil”. It’s a bit of a nebulous definition, but on physiological terms, Razah is a demon, and so too are the sylvari (if the theory holds).

And yeah, as I said above, the similarities are definitely there. In the case of the sylvari, the “suitable human template” is whatever inspired the Pale Tree (which we’re saying here is an agent of the Mists) to interpret and create the sylvari in the image of humans. The identity and personality of the sylvari is guided by the Ventari Tablet, and the purpose, well…that’s the question on everyone’s lips at the moment. Malyck’s sylvari, on the other hand, seem to have the same template as those of the Pale Tree, and an identity and personality much closer to human (like Razah, actually).

Another way to look at it: Razah’s name comes from the Latin tabula rasa (meaning “blank slate”), as does, apparently, his personality. The sylvari have a very literal slate, and it is not blank (incidentally, we know this does not account for the other major difference between the sylvari and Razah, namely their connection to the Mists). Malyck’s sylvari, on the other hand, have nothing like that as far as we know, which is why the Knight of Embers believed that they would fall to Nightmare much more easily. They are, like Razah, a blank slate.

Calling Razah a demon is like saying that Mylack is Nightmare Court, only, he just happens to be good. That doesn’t make sense since the base standard is Mylack and the corrupted version is the courtiers.

Since demons are corrupted versions, I’d say Razah isn’t a demon but that demons are evil (due to corruption) versions of beings like Razah. I’d question why we are trying to make the evil and confirmed corrupted version of the creatures as the standard.

And the definition a-net has supplied specifically states that demons are corrupted and evil. Motivated to feed on the misery they cause. if razah doesn’t fit that definition then he isn’t a demon. No matter what other relation is there.

edit; changed the example from “sylvari” to “mylack” for accuracy.

Obsidian.1328:

Dust
I don’t see how it’s situational when there’s only one way to look at it. That’s like saying the current situation with gravity is that it pulls things down. Doesn’t make sense.
How is it a petty land dispute? Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s…until they wrote that in recently to legitimize them staying there at all of course. You’ve got to be really patronizing not to see that.
You’re right, the Charr were never portrayed as noble. But they certainly are now.

Whether something is inherent or situational has nothing to do with how many situations we have available to us. Inherent means that that is the empirical quality of the thing no matter how you look at it. Situation means that the quality of the thing changes with the point of view. If you only have one point of view, yet another point of view exists, even if it’s not available to you, then it is still situational.

it’s petty because the entirety of Ascalon is not their home. Their home is Ebonhawke. But that has nothing to do with the fourth wall of when that lore was added. It’s either a lore conversation or an artistic integrity conversation. Mixing the two will never yield any result except to endlessly draw things out by picking and chooseing only what supports one side. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Edit: Lore: ascalon belonged to charr before humanity. Before any present day charr were born. No human alive belonged to an ascalon that was bigger then ebonhawke.

Artistic intention: “But that was added later” True, the details were added later. But what has always been the writers intention from the very beginning is that humanity “took up residence in lands that did not belong to [them]”

The mists are the building blocks of reality. Not everything in the mists is demonic. The link says that demons come from shards of existence that get corrupted.

edit: The lore says razah specifically isn’t a demonic entity. And, the similarities between Razah and the sylvari seem suspiciously similar.

“The protomatter that makes up the Mists strains toward creation, often spawning demonic creations in nightmarish forms. Not all creatures from the Mists are demonic, however. When the Mists come into contact with a suitable human template, for example, it can copy that form, creating a sentient entity with humanoid appearance and an almost human mind.”

“Razah is one such creation. It has sprung into being a fully-formed adult. It has the knowledge and capabilities of a human, but lacks common sense. As a result, it asks odd questions about human emotions, contemplates human motivations, and attempts to duplicate human mannerisms. Razah is a contradiction: more than human in some ways, and less than human in others. It needs an identity, a personality, and a purpose. Hopefully, it will find its purpose by working with a hero. Otherwise, it could degenerate into an abomination as monstrous and inhuman as its demonic brethren.”

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Razah

really just playing with the build editor and comparing it to what he used to know : http://en.gw2skills.net/editor

It may just be my tired mind but I see a Pale Tree analogy here. The mists create things. malice enters the mists through beings like Abbadon, Lord Jadoth, etc. now evil is created and propogated. In essence, the mists becomes corrupted.

The same way the Nightmare court is trying to corrupt the dream.

Ah, nice. We see that the corruption that creates a new demon begins in the mists. The corruption affects some of the new shards of creation. (as the mists are the building blocks of reality). If comes from the large malignant forces already in the mists. Where those “demon lords” (Lords of anguish http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Lords_of_Anguish) come from, who knows? definitely the mists but why are they malignant?

Zaxares.5419:

If real world plants were sapient, they would probably also be much less bothered about incest than we are. Self-pollination is a common occurrence among many plant species; if you think incest is squicky, imagine fertilising yourself and growing your own child purely from your own sperm. XD

………. grody :P

if you’re referring to the ED’s, I’m more inclined to lean toward this as well. My own personal theory encompasses the Eternal Alchemy and the Norn outlook of the Spirits. That ED’s, Spirits of the Wild and gods are all different types of beings within the same categorization. perhaps ED’s are the embodiment of ancient primordial powers.

I’d go with a-nets definition of demon. As for Konigs theory on the ED’s being demons. They may well be. We have no idea where they came from or really the intention behind their actions. All we know is that they were here before the gods. Are they here to revel in the misery they cause or are they just very intelligent, hungery animals/forces of nature? We don’t know yet.

edit: There seems to be a lot of corruption going on with Urgaz.

Urgoz: Breathe deeply the corruption of the forest…share its agony!
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Urgoz

and an awful lot of them are “maddened”. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Category:Urgoz%27s_Warren_NPCs

That shows that those plants are demons. And the common themes with the plants labeled as demons seems to be corruption from evil magic.

edit: yep, it’s the “evil” but not just any evil. Evil from the mists

“demons find ways into our world, where they feast on suffering, despair, and the vital energy of intelligent creatures.” " Whether they appear as monstrous humanoids, bestial abominations, or radically inhuman horrors, they share many of the same aspirations: the strong consume or dominate the weak, reveling in their feasts and victimization. As they are not native to the real world, demons hold an abiding hatred of its denizens."
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Demon

Why would juggernauts be any different? They are changed by magic. By your definition, they are demons.

We do know that there were some plant monsters made from elementalist magic. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Unnatural_Growths

ehh, I’d question that definition of demon. A-net seems to categorize them as mutations rather than lump them all up as demons.

“What make certain plants sentient and others not is due to mutations caused by an excessive amount of magic in the area”
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Jacaranda

The charr race was never portrayed as “noble”. they were savage and primitive and violent. Even during their golden age empire. They subjugated or destroyed any who dared defy them in the lands they claimed.

I think they found out that crushing the norn was going to be more trouble than it was worth. remember, they were expecting “a tide of blood”. When they lost, they found out that something like conquering the norn was going to take a lot more resources than they may have been willing to spend.

The dominance by the FL and the war was built upon religious ferver. So the shaman caste wouldn’t have been able to be responsible for huge losses. Not with the claim that these new gods power is what gives them the right to rule. And not the way the charr society constantly needs strength demonstrated in order to rule. Also, there were still political delicacies going on. The shaman caste of each legion ruled each legion with the FL ruling over all. No shaman of any high legion is going to volunteer to be the legion to break upon the norn borders. That would weaken any legion to the point that they could no longer compete with the other legions.

Jotun don’t have a religion now. But since the current “religion” is traced back to the giant kings and we know they fell to coveting powerful blood of the mighty giant kings after they lost magic they may well have abandoned any gods when they lost the magic.

or, they acjnowleged the gods as gods but just didn’t worship them. Similar to how the charr do today.

However, I also suspect that there are grains of truth in Thrulns accounting. But since it is NPC’s view it is most likely flawed in some way. Probably many ways. Maybe the jotun saw the seers as ‘gods’. maybe he is speaking of some of the older gods like melandru, whom even the charr acknowledge and whom the humans say is the oldest god. Possibly melandru was part of a different pantheon that included lost personalities before the newer members of the current six took over

very nice Tamias. I likey.

CHIPS.6018:

It is my scenario, and it isn’t up to you to change it. That’s like the story writer say “Dumbo can fly”, and you turn around and say “No he can’t.”

3) Again it isn’t up to you to change my scenario. I stated that the Dark Knights will surrender without a fight to the Pact, or commit suicide to protect their secrets. You cannot turn around and say “No they won’t.”

I agree so much with this that I’m giddy.

“The ability to spec for survival and the ability to zerg another player with multiple players of the same class is OP”

How is this diiffent than any other class?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

it’s equally possible He does not exist.

I’d say that this is the only honest conclusion that humanity at large can come to. That both possibilities are equally viable.

Science can’t prove the existence of a Supreme Being. Since that Supreme being wouldn’t be subject to the natural laws that It created. Even finding a Supreme Being would be impossible to test in a “controlled” environment to see whether they really are a Supreme Being or not. And positively denying what isn’t subject to the test of science goes against the entire spirit of science.

That means that it really does come down to any evidence that is enough for the individual. No matter which way they lean. Which is why, I think, Einstein wrote a book that stated that science and religion need not be at odds.

My guess would be that without a common enemy charr society will just go back to it’s infighting. All the major legions vying for dominance. But that infighting may not even be bloody. it could be largely political. With a khan-ur, the charr need the strict higherarchy of their society so much that any khan-ur that does get accepted will be so busy maintaining his worth as khan-ur that he need not fight a war.

keep in mind our own Pale tree can’t guarantee the safety of the pods that sprout from her. Sometimes they fall from such a great height upon “ripening” that they don’t survive.

FenrirSlakt.3692:

I’m calling it now. It’ll be Braham.

Braham Toothbreaker. Has nice ring to it.

Where in there does it mention a reduction of size of the norn race? Please point out the exact bits that make it so “clear”. Saying it’s there and showing how it’s there are very different things. Feel free to dissect his dialog.

Apparition.1576:

The evidence is clear, their feats are much smaller and a lot more normal. As a matter of fact, all these individual feats that you praise only happened once and they were all a very long time ago. In real life we like to refer to them as exaggerations.

FYI..The hint I was referring to was The Fang of the Serpeant. Look at the Size of it… stories does not tell of this as an individual feat or combined effort. But if this was an individual feat none of the Norns in the GW2 Generation would be able to accomplish anything even remotely possible.

Norns are not the Norns of old. Charr are still the trained killers they have always been, and they bred that way.

You know the norn are just waiting for the prophesy to be fulfilled of the norn that does break that tooth right? Hmm, that could be an indication that the norn are only getting stronger.

edit: if you skim through this very thread you will see some of the very recent feats from norn in the lore.

Obsidian.1328:

Dust

The thing is ANet only gives you one side to view it from, so it’s not situational. To them, looking at it from the Separatists side is wrong in-game. They may have said that about the centaurs, but they stop short from giving hard-line Ascalons the same relative maneuvering. In this scenario, it’s black and white to them. And that’s a problem.

The fact that it is only one side to view from means it is situational. We just don’t have the option of another situation. So that may well be a problem but it in no way means it is inherently bad. But it is probably situationally bad because it means that the majority of a species like the warmongering charr can see the writing on the wall, where as the sepretist and rebels hang onto petty land disputes in the wake of world ending dangers tyria now faces. details like that make the actions of the rebels and seperatists illogical and selfdestructive. As well as destructive to the fate of the world at large.

“The Age of Giants ended when magic was stolen from us. You norn turned to your Spirits of the Wild to redeem your strength and self-respect. We jotun have had no one and nothing to pull us from the quicksand.” Thruln The Lost
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thruln_the_Lost

He is clearly talking about social strength as a race. Besides which, that was long before the events of GW1 and he says they were redeemed before GW1. The only evidence that supports the norn getting individually weaker since GW1 can also be used to show that a naked asura is just as strong as a naked norn. Because in all likelyhood it is just a game mechanic.

It may well serve social purposes the same way recreation intercourse serves multiple species in RL.

Nicholas S Lin.6187:

A fort at best can only be classed as a small village – at most. Not a city.

A fort, by definition is also a stronghold. Meaning it isn’t made to ambulatory the way the villages of nomadic peoples were. It had watch towers and fixed stairs as well. It is clear evidence in GW1 that the charr utilized fixed positions. So we actually have indication that the charr may well not have been nomadic.

Obsidian.1328:

But ANet wants you to think the Separatists(and Renegades for that matter) are bad. That wanting to continue fighting for your home, in this case, is inherently a bad thing.

How does that fit in to your premise?

Anet gives us a POV. From the POV we are given they are bad. However, being bad in one POV doesn’t neccesarily mean that it has to be inherently bad. It just means it’s bad from the POV we are given. e.g.: Alligator eats my hand. bad from my POV, good from his. I’m sure there are noble intentions behind some of the seperatists and renegades. So they really aren’t saying that “fighting for your home is inherently a bad thing”. As Darkbattlemage pointed out, it is simply a bad thing in this instance due to the details. It is situationally bad. If it was inherently bad, details wouldn’t matter.

We are given plenty of red tags in the game. Even from aggressive animals. Does that make an irate bull “bad”? Or does it make the centaur “bad”? Even a-net acknowledges that some situations (like centaur) are more complicated than “good or bad”.

bullyrook.2165:

I have a question: does that mean when our hero’s fought for Ascalon in GW1, we were actually the bad guys?

Not so! It means that when a member of each race fights for what’s best for their race/home/family/city/etc, they don’t have to be inherently bad or good. Like asking who the good guys and bad guys were within the human kingdoms during the guild wars. Often times, simple catagories like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ can only be too simple to be accurate.

hmm. I hadn’t noticed that before. Now I won’t be able to not notice it :/

Some of the pale trees children also have antennae. I use the face on my ele (top). I actually think Malyck (bottom) uses the same face as the playable one.

Apparition.1576:

Dustfinger.9510:

Apparition.1576:

Kimbo Slice lost a fight to a little shrimp.

Give it up with this superhuman stregnth crap, that has nothing to do with getting whipped in a fight. Skill, agility, experience are all equal factors. Go to the gym and watch all those big guys lifting all those weights, put him in a ring with a trained fighter and watch what happens. Skilled, vicious, and none of that stregnth means anything.

Chars are bred to fight, they have trained since birth, you guys are hilarious. This is a fight we are talking about people.. not a rock lifting contest…

It was given before you even tried. 4th page 11th post down

“And we have already been shown what would tend to happen. So personal anecdotes about getting beat by smaller guys and issues about other advantages being a factor have been addressed. At least by me.”

So by your logic a valid rebuttle only needs me to reference to a big guy beating a small guy.

Apparition.1576:

Awaiting your rebuttle….

almost 20 minutes later….

The ball is …. how you say…. “in your court”.

So just to clarify.. your rebuttle to my entire arguement… this one time.. there was this norn.. i dont know his name or anything but he beat an entire warband with one punch! This proves Norn can beat Charr?

This sounds like the arguement of a child.. why don’t you take at least a few minutes to refine your arguements instead of just posting garbage 99 out of 100 of the posts that you make.

The entire argument that went “This one time, this big guy got beat by this small guy”? Really? Really??!? lol

Might as well ask why isn’t the Pact keeping the humans from taking ogre land?