Guild Wars 2

Bazompora.2635:

Dilige Vitam.1956:

In this thread: People forgetting that Ascalon was originally the Charr’s land and Humans kicked them out of it.

You’re forgetting that, originally, Ascalon was neither’s land and the Charr took it from Grawl and Ogres.

I doubt Dilige is forgetting that.

Obsidian

As an artist, I do see your point. I have stated that a few times in our various interactions on this topic. I agree, mood style and theme are different. It is a different zeitgeist. That’s not in contention. At all.

What is in contention is this:

you’re using the absence of evidence as proof of the possibility of evidence to the contrary.

Coupled with this:

If you call to question their inherent “evilness”, then you have to call to question every single other species on the planet that isn’t specifically labeled “inherently evil”. That’s extremely silly. The writers didn’t call it out back then because they assumed the players would…well…get it, for lack of a better phrase.

The absence of evidence absolutely is proof of possibility. We have entire forums dedicated to possibilities in lore that aren’t explicitly given to us. Because artists rarely forsee every question about worlds they create. You don’t seem to have a problem with any other possibilities that weren’t called out. You take their idea of inherent evil as a given. A preconceived notion that didn’t need to be elaborated on in order to exist. This to me, is a clear baseless assumption.

Were all hostile NPC’s intended to be explicitly inherently evil unless otherwise stated? No. That is extremely silly. Because you are so sure that this is what the writers intended even when you have absolutely no evidence beyond how you feel. In fact the idea that they even thought of it or cared to try to portray it in any way is an implication that they actually did think deeper on who the charr were. But nothing shows that that was their intention. Nothing at all. Nothing beyond what you wish was true. This part of your war is an illusion that only exists in your own mind.

Does it accurately reflect the story, style, and setting of GW1. Hell no.

I said it before and I’ll say it again. We are agreed that it is a different zeitgeist. That’s a valid concern. But this issue about charr nature is an irrational bias on your part. You overthink the original artwork due to another artist being commissioned to expand upon it. That overthinking has caused you to imagine that the original artist forsaw what the next artist would write and you imagine that the original artist addressed it. they didn’t. Not one way or another. Not even in an abstract, ambiguous or nebulous way.

Kalarchis.8635:

Dustfinger.9510:

If we are going to ask for out of combat weapon swap, we have to ask for it to also apply to all classes. Because the lack of in combat weapon swap is already at balance.

Instead of asking for ele’s to get ooc weapon ask for all classes to get an ooc weapon swap for the weapons they aren’t currently using (the other classes would still get a total of two different sets that they would be using and that would be swappable in combat). Otherwise, it’s like asking for new armor styles for only charr, or only humans. It doesn’t make sense.

Every other class already has weapon switching OOC.

…………

Not for weapons they don’t already have in their equipable slots. Just like ele’s and engi’s.

If we are going to ask for out of combat weapon swap, we have to ask for it to also apply to all classes. Because the lack of in combat weapon swap is already at balance.

Instead of asking for ele’s to get ooc weapon ask for all classes to get an ooc weapon swap for the weapons they aren’t currently using (the other classes would still get a total of two different sets that they would be using and that would be swappable in combat). Otherwise, it’s like asking for new armor styles for only charr, or only humans. It doesn’t make sense.

Did you take this post as an attack against humanity?

What would having friends who don’t have humans as main characters have to do with it?

I agree with Penguin. I think a-net wants to leave the hybrid option open rather than assign one weapon per build.

Necros can weapon switch. The reason ele’s and engi’s can’t is because their respective attunements and kits would provide more options than all other classes have access to. So your suggestion may solve the issue as long as it was given to all the other classes above and beyond the in combat weapon swap they already have.

WhiteAndMilky.2514:

Thankfully these changes wouldn’t penalize people who don’t run stealth spamming builds. You would still have the same required skill level regardless of what weapons you chose to use.

A thief should not have an issue vs a guardian and aegis, if they were able to bait out the aegis’s early, as they are on long cooldowns. Guardian has 1 to start, that’s something easy to remove, then you can expect 1 more as he activates the virtue, and then no aegis for quite a while. Plenty of time there, and a thief needs very little time.

Guardians can give aegis to other party members but now you’ve created an argument for aegis that you said was invalid when used for thieves. How is needing to bait out aegis on a guardian different from needing to anticipate a thieves strategy?

The payoff isn’t worth paying employees to change it, imo.

Obsidian.1328:

Sorry Dust, busy weekend.

I never said your two types weren’t evil or whatever, I just said the game makes it obvious that the Charr are the bad guys. In a game like GW2 where good & evil are black and white, it’s silly to question the motives behind both evil and good. The narrative wasn’t built that way, you’re projecting GW2’s moral ambiguity onto the GW1 stage. You’re right, it wasn’t clarified. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

It wasn’t clarified that the player character was a good person either, just that he saved Tyria from a bunch o’ calamities. It’s an assumed role you take on as the hero, they don’t have to outright state it. If they had felt they had to, the writers would have done a very poor job.

Take Markis of the Shining Blade for instance. He’s depicted simply as a traitor. Is he inherently or situationally evil? Who cares, it doesn’t matter. Maybe his wife was dying of an incurable disease and the Mursaat promised to help. It doesn’t say, he’s just a kitten for sellin’ out.

The Charr on the other hand, are entirely depicted as one of the apex antagonists. Everything from the few bits of lore we get on them, the in-game depictions, their dialogue content, their animations, their names, to even their armor style…depicts them in a way that leaves zero doubt as to their intentions. There’s no debate on this, they were made by the designers to be killers.

And giving them some inventive “out” like Flame Legion made ’em do it!! because there’s no “proof” of their inherent evilness is apologistic and irresponsible. It lets them completely write off the original intentions of the Charr, and blames the disconnect as ignorance on the Ascalonians part. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen or grander or more implausible 180 with a game race before.

GW2 is a different game with a different style. And no amount of reinventing, recreating, or outright retconning, will erase the old game for what it was meant to be…that is, until the day they pull the plug on it.

I agree. The char were evil in GW1. It was definitely black and white. I don’t even disagree that it is silly to question the motives in GW1. As I said, no one cared what they were because it all just boiled sown to evil in the end. What I do disagree with is that it was ever implied either way as to what the motives were.

Since it was so black and white, the issue was never addressed because it never needed to be. But that also means the charr had room in GW2 to be written as situationally evil in GW1. My whole point is that it does make sense and it absolutely doesn’t go against the lore in GW1. There is no retcon here. At all. You can’t have it both ways. Either they were simply evil with no deeper insight (which we agree on) or they were implied to be inherently evil which means there was a deeper insight. I think your trying to bring a legitimate concern about GW1 and 2 having different zeitgeists into an illegitimate concern about a deeper insight into the GW1 charr that simply didn’t exist. But those are two different issues with vastly different levels of valididity.

As I said, some of us may not agree with what the GW2 writers filled those lore holes in with, but it does make sense and it absolutely isn’t a retcon.

edit: So let’s take Markis. he was undoubtedly a pee hole for selling out. No matter what his motivations are. If we find out later that his daddy beat him and his mommy never loved him (maybe maybe not), it doesn’t lessen the impact or result of his actions. they were evil no matter what. Do you say he as a human being was inherently evil like the charr? This is the double standard here.

In the same way, the charr were evil, no matter what. So why would Markis still be evil with relatable problems but you view the charr as somehow pawning their actions off? No matter what, the charr were still evil in GW1. I stated that from the beginning.
Would you view Markis as having an “out” or it being “irresponsible” to simply give his story depth? I doubt it. Because I think your legitimate concern is bleeding over into illegitamte areas.

What type of things should be different? lace and frills on female charr armor? In RL that is an echo of western aristocrity who didn’t do amual labor. Those types of things wouldn’t make sense to seperate into gender roles in charr society. If not lace and frills then what?

And male charr do have longer hair options.

edit: Just realized, different decoration on armor is a different armor set. What you’re really asking for is different armor sets for male and female charr. What would tie those armor sets together to being the same set since they would have different decorations? And what would the other races get while charr are getting double armor sets?

Ya, they just added the Ash Legion shield.

Obligatory: “A-net has stated they are working on giving all weapons to all classes.”

WhiteAndMilky.2514:

I believe he was talking about revealed CD. If you have an offhand dagger you can re-stealth every 4 seconds after revealed, if you don’t blow your initiative on something else.

What auto blocks are you talking about?

The problem with redesigning a class around a limited amount of weapon options is that it shoe horns the class into that option.

Yes, I was referring to aegis. It creates the same issue the OP has against thieves. Sloppy play that isn’t based on skill. The OP’s suggestion only takes away the main advantage of low health, med armor class and gives it to a heavy armor high healing class.

Remember that all beings and everything else comes from the mists in one way or another as a-net has described the mists as the “building blocks of reality”.

We know that Abbadon really did die, we know the Owl Spirit died and we know that an ED died. But we don’t know much beyond that as to the nature of the most powerful beings. There may be one type that rules over the rest or there may be a rock, paper, scissors scenario. Or it may not be easily measurable in an instance that mimic comparing apples and oranges. If it is an apples and oranges scenario, then any definition of “power” would be completely arbitrary. So the answer would be predetermined by the chosen definition.

On Caladbolg: keep in mind that sylvari are heavily inspired from Celtic lore. Current Celtic lore is heavily influenced from it’s pre-Christian origins. So the “holy” weapons don’t have the same connotation as our common present day western understanding would prescribe. ‘Holy’, in the deeply naturalistic culture of early Celts dealt with elements of nature. The noble as well as the naturally destructive.

The Celtic gods weren’t omnipotent. So the powers and artifact associated with them were more easily guided by personal choice than divine will or destiny. The same personal choice and option for bouts of emotional outbursts that was claimed by gods was echoed to humanity. And the holy artifacts wouldn’t fight human outbursts so much because it wasn’t against the nature of the gods that inspired the holiness. Now a specific artifact from a god of healing may resist a deeply hateful and violent agenda but we don’t see that this type of scenario applies to Caladbolg.

Fortus.6175:

Well yes, isnt that the whole idea of counter play? In case you didnt know, aegis has a 90 seconds CD, stealth has a 4 seconds CD. Im sure you have done at least first grade math, so you should know that 90 > 4 therefore it is quite valid.

Not all theif builds have that stealth CD. Seems you would be forcing the thieves into that one build just so they could have a chance at winning.

Edit: This would only work if we also got rid of auto blocks. Auto anything really. That promotes sloppy play. This way a thieves attack is skill based along with his enemies.

As Cottontail said:

It was unneeded because the events, dialogue, situations, visuals. etc. that are in the game all lead you to that conclusion.

So they all lead to that conclusion even though you also admit there is a lack of clarity with no explanation. You contradict yourself. So what then would lead us to that conclusion?

You’re confusing inherent evil with just being evil for any reason at all and falsely assuming situational evil isn’t also evil. Evil actions don’t point to inherent evil or situational evil. As I already stated, it all boils down to evil in the end. There is no evidence either way at all. It is left compleltly undefined as you yourself admit. The wishful thinking is on your part because you really want this to be true. But it’s built on an imaginary foundion here that only existed in personal assumption. It wasn’t actually part of the lore as you say it was.

I’ll save you the time. It’s not there. It’s not there because they didn’t concern themselves with that question when they created the world. It was a lore hole from the beginning that was filled later by others.

edit: As I said, the only thing that could hint at inherent over situational is the individual habit of assuming inherent over situational in undefined circumstances.

Great. Let’s dance to the authors tune. So ANY evidence at all provided by the authors that hint at “inherent” over “situational” would be appreciated. You keep saying it’s there. Show me. Because all I see from them is undefined evil.

The writers/humanity didn’t care what the reason for the evil was. All they wrote/saw was “evil”. Nothing in the game assumes inherent or situational because no one in or out of the game cared why the charr wanted them eradicated. They only cared about surviving it and fighting back.

The GW1 staff wrote the what. The GW2 writers concerned themselves with the why because the GW1 writers left the why completely open in that reguard. Some of us may not agree with the GW2 writers because it doesn’t fit with our assumptions but we can’t say that it doesn’t make sense. We also can’t say the GW1 writers were against it simply because they didn’t address it in any way, shape or form.

So a fourth grader can figure out inherently evil over situationaly evil. that’s fine if there is any evidence at all supporting that. But there isn’t because it was left completely unaddressed. Unless your opinion is that any evil automatically starts out being inherently evil unless otherwise stated. But that’s just silly. And extremely limiting to any artist who considers creating evil in any form.

Nothing about GW1 lore specified inherently evil over situationally evil. Whether slapped in the face or not. So the assumption that the charr were inherently evil was only an assumption your part. All we saw was evil. Plain and simple. It wasn’t objective. there wasn’t a gray area. But it also wasn’t inherent or situational. It was undefined.

What about their actions or dialog made them inherently evil as opposed to situationally evil? As far as I know, nothing about their lore clarified it in GW1. In Warhammer, we know inherent evil because there are actual evil gods of chaos that spawn evil races. GW1 charr have nothing of the sort to point to any inherent evil. So it was undefined.

It does make them fair game because taking one view from one point in history makes all the difference. WWI Germany>WWII Germany>Present day Germany. Taking WWII view is pretty black and white but doesn’t make them ineligible for sympathy prior to or after WWII. And it all makes sense with out needing thousands of years to explain.

To clarify, situationally evil still just boils down to evil in the end. It can even be considered worse than inherently evil because it implies more choice in the matter. Similar to WWII Germany. We can’t accuse them of being bred as evil beings but we can identify causes and effects in situations that allowed for the evil of humanity to shine through.

So out of the two choices of GW1, either inherent or situational (because none was clarified), they ended up choosing situational. It doesn’t change the story. It doesn’t change what the charr did. It doesn’t even change what the humans did. All it changes is our sympathies with the alpha history charr because now we can identify with them. All in all, I think our views aren’t that much different. I think we both see the same coin, we just talk about different sides.

It’s not a question of character point-of-view though, it’s simply the writing style used to in the storyline.

It’s clear what was intended in GW1 but it’s also clear that the writing style of GW2 does turn the style of GW1 into a question of character POV.

A similar thing was done in Warhammer to a lesser extent. Orcs and beastmen and skaven have always been inherently evil because the entire lore behind them has always been inherent evil. But as the lore evolved, we got to depth in their races and we see cause and effect that reaches beyond simple ‘good’ races and evil ones. In fact it may be even more similar to GW2 (just on the other side of the coin) since there really is no “good” race. Just less evil ones.

In GW1 the charr were clearly intended to be marauding beasts on the rampage but we were never given lore that said it was in their nature to be inherently evil. The option to go either way was always open between inherently evil or situationally evil. So the lore of GW2 actually does make the GW1 lore a perspective issue. But for those purists, the Flame legion and the entire shaman cast of GW1 are still painted as (situationally) evil. They just have a bit more depth and detail in the motivation and cause of said evil.

However, none of that confirmation of charr being situationally evil in GW1 absolves the humans of invading charr land and pushing them out of Ascalon 1000 years prior. Nothing can justify it if we are going to measure the playable races with the same ruler. Unless we accept that might makes right is an acceptable general rule.

Jorjeis.2169:

Giving live birth is completely incidental.

The word “mammal” is modern, from the scientific name Mammalia coined by Carl Linnaeus in 1758, derived from the Latin mamma (“teat, pap”). All female mammals nurse their young with milk, which is secreted from special glands, the mammary glands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

My point was it is wrong to say that being a mammal has precisely nothing to do with giving birth to live young. "Mammal is an archaic clasificiation that is based on general rules and outdated understanding of how animals formed. There are overlaps within many different classifications and the definition of mammal has always included the general rule of live birth.

edit: On topic: Head size can be solved in a few different ways.

-Asura could release hormones during birth that make their cartilage more elastic than we see happen in humanity.

-Asura are born proportionally smaller than human progeny.

-Asura newborn brains and skull are more physically malleable so they could be safely birthed.

-Any combination of the above possibilities.

Jorjeis.2169:

Zaxares.5419:

Asura are mammals, so they mate and give birth to live young the same way humans do.

Being a mammal has precisely nothing to do with giving birth to live young. A mammal is a creature that produces milk from mammary glands (note the common word root).

mam·mal [mam-uhl] Show IPA

noun
any vertebrate of the class Mammalia, having the body more or less covered with hair, nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mammal?s=t

Here is a post I found about non-mammals who produce milk. Complete with reference links:

You read that right; there are in fact animals that feed their young with bodily secretions that are not mammals. Some folks are real persnickety and won’t call something “milk” unless it came from a mammal, but that’s just prejudice.

For some strange reason, Middle Age scholars believed that the pelican would feed its young with its own blood. I have no idea where they got such a preposterous notion, but then these were the same people who believed that barnacles turn into geese and that the best procedure to cure a sword wound was to boil a complicated potion out of bear-skull scrapings under a full moon and apply said goop to the sword.

But it turns out that some birds do feed their young with their bodies. Pigeons and flamingos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropmilk)produce a milky substance in their crops, which they regurgitate to their young. It’s somewhat higher in fat and minerals (http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6577vp3980w3442/) than mammalian milk; the minerals in particular being very important to the development of young birds. Many domestic birds develop osteological problems due to lack of minerals, and I suspect that calcium requirements during development are the reason that birds have never evolved live birth._

Somewhat less well known is the fact that emperor penguins (http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/BirdMilk.html)also produce milk, although this seems to be a less routine occurrence than in pigeons or flamingos._

But surely this pales compared to the occurrence of milk in tsetse flies (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/72/11/7013).

“The tsetse fly’s unique viviparous reproductive biology (females use milk gland secretions to nourish three larval instars)”

Wouldn’t it be awesome if the ghosts leave the minute the charr agree that Rytlock is the new Khan-Ur?

There could be a simple explanation of how Rytolck got the sword or an epic tale to rival that of the One Ring. Either way, it just hasn’t been written yet.

Frostfang.5109:

To Dustfinger… I don’t see how u can find a TENT around u’r legs functional… That’s what the coats are to us Charr.

How does this relate to the differences between male armor and female armor? My post was directed at the post topic.

Armor is above all functional. No matter who is selling it. That may hold true for town cloths but as far as armor goes, there should really be no difference in style. The charr are the only ones doing it right.

As Electro said, sylvari don’t hate technology. They are curious and interested in the rest of the world. Right now there is an influx in the engineer profession because the charr have demonstrated how effective their technology is. So your sylvari could have a few reasons depending on your individual character.

- To learn about the charr

-to broaden your horizons and join the larger world outside of the grove (which would also fit any class)

-They may have a mechanical knack

really, it would be the same reasons any non-charr race would take it up, since it is charr tech that they are specializing in.

-

i’ve decided we can be BFF’s :P

I definitely don’t want dervish to be lost. I’m looking forward to a-net bringing us back to Elona eventually. And i’m sure when we do, that dervish will make an appearence in all their wandering mystical glory.

edit: actually, merging the two ideas might work. If we get to Elona the dervish will have done something in the gods absence. Probably turning more to the mysticism available than the gods that aren’t, as you suggested. that would be a good oportunity to add scythe and the swords to ele that the dervish could use. In game we could get them from dervish trainers who would mechanically be scythe weilding eles. aby way, that’s the end og my late night brain storm……. for now. Dun dun dun!

videoboy.4162:

My suggestion this entire time, has been to add Lore into that gap, that explains the change from serving gods to serving something else (I suggested nature).

So going from one thing to another. That sounds like a change to me. As far as I’M concerned, we have no further issue.

Now that THAT’S settled. What would make them dervish? Since the actual lore behind them would have to change. Even if it’s in a way that you suggested.

I’d be more in favour of a dervish-like class named something else. Much like the Guardians did for the paragon. Or better yet, (imo) add a new scythe weapon to the elementalist that gives them the dervish feel. That way they are still open enough to comply with all racial needs and it fits a-nets goal of adding more weapons to all classes. And they’d still have the diffrent elemental magics to pull from.

videoboy.4162:

I’m

In order for the Lore to change, it would need to be retconned out of existence.

wait for it ………..

The Dervish doesn’t face that dilemma. The only thing that happens to them if the gods leave, is that they lose the ability to transform. Nothing else about their skill set would change

really? >.>

So in order to show an evolution you endorse retconning out the avatar transformation? Or do you endorse an actual evolution from god worship without a retcon? becasue you seem to arbitrarily pick and choose when the word “change” means retcon and when it doesn’t.

And dervish also “Served the gods as holy warriors”. Could they keep that too or would that also need to change …..or be retconned ….or evolved?

I’m sure you’ve noticed that literally every human class, in the current game, still calls out to various gods, while their racial counterparts just say something else, despite being the exact same profession? Or maybe you noticed that each race has their own personal racial skills that they can use? Again, despite being the same classes?

Right. What’s the point here? except to endorse exactlly what I said. that guardians aren’t automatically priests unless you decide that your own specific character is a priest.

Oh, so you DO know the word! That tells me you understood what was being said the entire time. And that means that when you said the lore of the dervish wouldn’t need to change, that you now know were wrong. yet…… you still keep trying. Is your pride really that fragile?

Edit: Your entire arguement about charr priests was that they had shaman. Well, their shaman were any caster. any caster at all. So there is no need for them to have a class with spirituality in order to be priests. By your logic, any casting class with melee capabilities is a warrior priest.

videoboy.4162:

You really need to check a dictionary. You don’t need to worship gods to be a Priest or Shaman: Shaman and Priest are synonyms. That’s why Shamans existed in Charr society long before they’d ever even had to deal with humans and their gods and why the word is still appropriate despite the lack of god worship.

There is absolutely no sleight of hand going on, there’s just you blatantly ignoring any evidence I present and refusing to crack a dictionary.

A Lore change would be completely removing the Dervish worshipping gods from the history of the game. Having their abilities evolve because the gods are silent, isn’t changing the established Lore. Their having to learn to use another source for their magic, doesn’t have to change their history. They would still be wandering priests protecting and teaching those interested.

I didn’t say Guardians needed to be defensive. I said that they don’t fit the definition of a battle mage because they are defensive. The bulk of their spells are focused on healing and/or defending.
The entire point of a battle mage is to be offensive. To combine weapons and magic to take out their enemies as fast as possible.

………

A Lore change would be completely removing the Dervish worshipping gods from the history of the game.

It’s not reconning the lore. It is still changing the lore of what a dervish is. Becasue what a dervish curently is, doesn’t fit all the playable races. An evolution is a change. As I stated and restated “Just keep in mind that they won’t actually be dervish much like the guardians aren’t actually paragon.” guardians have evolbed from many teachings of paragons. But guardians aren’t paragons. And this new nature worshipping fighting caster won’t be a dervish either. We on the same page yet?

edit: and by your equation of a charr shaman and a priest, all charr melee casters are warrior priests. Dagger elementalist? check. Sword mesmer? absolutely. dagger necro? yes again. Charr sure do have alot of warrior priests for a race that largely shuns actual gods and religion.

That they would. They’d be that artistic steam punk rather than the roughshod raw iron we get from the charr.

Idk. Humanity in Tyria tends to favor artisan crafting techniques. Without the charr industrial machine backing them, they might fall prey to the same lack of resources that keeps the Pact from fielding more tanks.

videoboy.4162:

Source? That’s the definition of a Shaman. They’re spiritual leaders. You’re way too caught up on the whole god aspect of this.

The only part of the Lore that would need changing, would be the source of their Avatar Form. Absolutely nothing else would need changing. They would still be wandering priests, practicing their spiritual beliefs. It’s completely asinine to think that, if they could no longer directly channel a god to assume an Avatar form, that they wouldn’t adapt their magic to channel something else.

Heck, we could totally remove the Avatar form altogether and that still wouldn’t change their Lore as wandering priests, spreading their beliefs to chosen pupils. The only real change might be that their beliefs evolved from serving gods to serving nature.

If you think I need to bone up on my Lore, you may want to bone up on your reading comprehension. You even quoted ANet’s saying that the Guardian evolved from Paragons and their teachings. You may also need to recall that Paragons were directly chosen by gods. Guardians still follow the spiritual teachings of the Paragons, they just don’t directly worship gods. Combine that with several of the Monk’s skills and you get a spiritual fighter, NOT a battle mage.

Battle Mages are offensive, Guardians are meant to be Defensive. That isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

And, again, one does not have to worship a god or gods, to be considered a Priest or Shaman.

So no source. Got it. Nothing to indicate that charr shaman were the equal of priests. Got it. But you did say one thing that stuck out:

“The only real change might be that their beliefs evolved from serving gods to serving nature.”

That’s a HUGE freakin lore change!

Let’s make it real simple. Dervish lore is that they are fighting priests who worship the human gods. That’s the lore. Any deviation from that standard model is a change to the lore. So trying to equate shaman to god worshipping priests in one posts and then minimising them as moral teachers in another is a waste of both out time.

Can palayable charr be fighting priests who worship the human gods? Nope. Not going to happen. No matter what role non-god worshipping shaman have taken in their society.

Likewise, your arbitrary focus on rules of guardians (That you tried to lable as priests) needing to be defensive while battlemages need to be offensive are equally useless, except to draw attention away from the fact that you thought guardians were priests. This sleight of hand you keep trying to utilise is obvious to anyone reading your posts.

Cufufalating.8479:

What I found amusing is any armour class can use it (the helmt at least, I assume the whole set).

Warriors dressed like that.. lol

Yes! Hopefully this is a paving stone to getting rid of armor class. It really is an outdated mechanic.

videoboy.4162:

You may want to go back and do some research on what exactly priests and shamans do. Those roles aren’t exclusively linked to gods (especially since not religions believe in a god or gods), but are also major parts of spiritual groups and their practices. That is the reason the Charr had Shamans long before attempting to worship any gods, they were the spiritual leaders of the Charr. They were responsible for teaching the values and philosophies of the Charr race.

Source please. And then go ahead and explain how this justifies playable charr priests. Because I can teach my kids not to lie without being a priest.

Shamans are/were also part of all four legions, just far more prevalent in the Flame Legion, which is why it is noted that the other three legions have a much lower number of spell casters than the Flame Legion.

Guardians are, according to ANet themselves, an evolution of the Paragons and their teachings, with several aspects of the Monk thrown in. There’s a reason all their magic revolves around spirits and light. They also retain the role of being a spiritual class and follow certain philosophies.

Jeff Grubb: “With the turmoil in Elona and the spread of the Order of Whispers into other lands, more Paragon teaching showed elsewhere in Tyria. These teachings melded with other traditions, and over time, the Guardians and their abilities can be found throughout the world and among all the races. They are not tied to a particular race, philosophy, or group of gods but rather to a larger concept of proactive defense, of taking the fight to a foe and protecting those you fight alongside while appealing equally to humanity’s defensive nature and the Charr’s desire to rule the battlefield.”

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/31/behind-the-scenes-with-the-guild-wars-2-guardian-massivelys-in/

Guardians are not priests. Bone up on your lore. The only metion of “priest from GW1” is in functionality not lore or teachings. We see paragons did have a hand in the development but it wasn’t the religious teachings or god worship as you are trying to imply.

They are not battle mages, in the sense that you’re trying to use the term, mainly because their magic is primarily defensive in nature and not offensive.

“I think the Guardian is much more of a pragmatic and tactical user of a magic as opposed to an Elementalist, who is a pure student of magic. The Elementalist casts discrete spells, and you have the feeling that there is a heritage and body of knowledge behind those spells. Guardians seem to use magical energy in the heat of combat, from the front line. That sense of immediacy sets the Guardian apart from more traditional spell-casters and allows for a heavily armored magical character.”

In the sense Im trying to use them? What sense is that? That they aren’t priests? That they are a fighting magic user without definite ties to a god or religion? No, the sense Im using them is fine. They are more battlemage than priest. In fact they aren’t priest at all unless you decide that your own character is a priest.

Again, the only change needed, would be the removal of a Dervish transforming into an Avatar of human god. Replacing that with any Avatar of nature that reflects their skill set, would suffice easily. This has been my point the entire time.

And your point is wrong because the entire reason for that avatar is the worship of the god. You would have to take that worship out of the dervish for it to work which means the lore would change. And your earlier points were both that the lore would not have to change and that charr could be priests.

Hmmm. The very light tank we see in that GW vid isn’t built like our own heavier tanks. So that particular model being used as mobile artillery seems to be playing to it’s strength. I could see what you would be saying if it was one of the heavier models the charr have but it’s not. Having that light tank advance in front of the troops would only put it in a uneccesarliy vulnerable position. Especially since we can see that it is fully capable of firing over it’s own troops and into enemy ranks the way we use modern tanks today. (And likely, for the same reason. Because they can be taken out)

In combat there is no hard and fast rule for how a weapon is “supposed to be used”. There is only general guidelines that are dictated by tendancies. because so much of it is highly dependant on the battlefield situation. Especially since the Tyrian tanks have such vastly different models who will have different advantages and disadvantages. If that tank can be fixed, it is no different than reviving the engineers in Orr to fix the catapults in order to hold a strategic position. It’s a tacticle descision to hold a position until the "cavalry " gets there. In the case where they repair the tank. The tank would be the cavalry.

Edit: The way that small tank is used isn’t wrong. It’s smart because the pact doesn’t seem to have the resources to field a battalion of them at that moment. It is being used like an archer unit. Except that archer unit has explosive arrows for more damage and and light armor for greater protection. It’s like saying that an army could field an entire battalion of archers/riflemen on their front line. Sure they could if they had the resources. And they would be highly effective as long as their arrows can penetrate the enemies armor (the way the tanks ammo can) but with fewer tanks/archers, it is wiser to keep them at a distance where they can do the the most damage with the least risk of having your powerful weapon taken out.

So going back to the point of who should be in front of who, in WWI and II it was common for troops to advance in conjunction with tanks. Your own link said that only the “heaviest” tanks advanced first. The tank we protect is clearly not the heaviest Tyria has to offer. The infantry that advanced with the lighter tanks did protect them from sabotage as the lighter tanks took out targets that weren’t immediately on them. You’ve just demonstrated how your original argument about how troops shouldn’t be risking their lives for the tank is flawed.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. They had shamans. Those shamans had no religious connotation before the FL found the Titans. So your reasoning that just because they had shamns that that means they can have playable priests is flawed. The priest part would derfinitly need to be removed. So you don’t have a leg to stand on here. Charr shaman have no religious connotation, no connection to any type of priest outside of the FL. Are you saying we should play FL?

Now onto guardians: Guardians are not priests. They aren’t holy warriors or paladins. They are battle mages. If you want to make your points you need to bone up on your GW2 lore. Forget what you think you know from other fantasy universes. In GW the original charr shaman aren’t linked to any god and guardians aren’t paladins.

What exactly is your point because you keep bouncing between two extremes. Either you think playable charr can be priest warriors (which they can’t due to lore) or you think that the lore of the dervish will need to change because the dervish is a warrior priest.

CHIPS.6018:

1) Konig, you surely knows lore very well. But I doubt you understand anything about armour warfare. Tanks never stays behind infantry unless the enemy have anti tank guns.

As a Marine who served in an anti-tank CAAT Plt, I can say that this is a very simplistic view to the point of being wrong. Modern warfare is much more complicated than heavy front line unless they have a counter to your heavy frontline. Anti-tank weapons are mobile and numerous. Tanks are fully capable of hanging back and bouncing their payload across the ground for great distances to engage other armored vehicles. While other unit types can and will take the lead.

videoboy.4162:

You’re right, “worship” was a poor word choice on my part.

People mentioned that the gods that Dervishes got their powers from were not around and that would ruin the lore. I said that if ANet felt the need to change the Lore, then the Dervish abilities could be based around aspects of nature, rather than particular gods.

Which is no different than the post that I made that you disagreed with.

However, I disagree with your statement about the Charr, because the Lore specifically states that many Charr shun religion, but not all of them do. Considering that the Charr still have Shamans, which are a type of Priest, having a group of Charr act as Dervishes isn’t out of the realm of possibility, nor is it Lore breaking.

The charr that embrace religion on any meaningful scale are non-playable. They are Flame Legion. The charr term for shaman was used before the charr even had gods to give them power. It origionally meant any spell caster and more recently only applies to Flame legion because they are the only charr with any religion. The FL are the only reson the term “shamn” has a religious connotation in charr society. Trying to twist the lore so that the charr can have a class a playable priests who do worship the human gods just isn’t going to happen.

It has also been mentioned in the Lore, that the Charr Legions have noted they have a lack of spellcasters. The addition of the Dervish would fit right in with their military society as they are combination warriors and spellcasters.

All High legions utilize all classes of spell casters including guardians (who are also a combination of caster and warrior). Adding another spell casting class won’t change the dynamic of IL specializing in engineers, BL specilizing in warriors and AL specilising in rogues. They have a lack spell casters by choice. Because they don’t trust them and won’t allow them to rule anymore since the old shaman cast abused their power.

But all that is moot. because I’ve already said it’s okay if the lore is changed to fit the other races. I specifically stated: The lore problem is that they are priest warriors. Taking away their “priestliness” would make them a light armored battle mage. Which is okay. Just keep in mind that they won’t actually be dervish much like the guardians aren’t actually paragon.

The Flame Legion is condemned more for their worship of false gods and longtime oppression of the other legions than for the fact they have a preference for fireballs. The Flame Legion remains the most “magical” legion – that was their strength, and their overthrow in part has driven charr achievements in technology. But the charr always appreciate a fellow charr who can carry his or her own weight, and while they might mock an elementalist for his light armor, they appreciate the mobile artillery support that a timely meteor shower provides. http://www.onlinewelten.com/games/guild-wars-2/interviews/jeff-grubb-im-interview-zu-charr-7759/seite-3/

The charr aren’t starving for magic users.

the whole basis for the pact renaming them is flawed. The pact has no outside experience with tanks other than what the charr have given them and what they have built themselves. But if the charr invented them and decided to call them tanks. Then that’s what they are since nothing else in the world was a tank before the charr invented them.

So the charr tanks also fit the definition of a tank destroyer. But without actual tanks, there is no such thing as a tank destroyer. So……