ThatOddOne.4387

That doesn't really imply the Judge has left. Why would he leave anyway?

I would like the GW1 PC to have taken Balthazar's place as a kind of "nameless, faceless" god of 'rightful' conflict, aka, fighting to protect someone or something, rather than fighting for fighting's sake.

But given the timeline issues probably not? Though to be honest, if the GW1 PC died before they were required, Grenth could have had them resurrected specifically for the purpose of replacing Balthazar when he went haywire.

Either way, his replacement needs to be following that same idea with "rightful" conflict. War is definitely a requirement to protect friends, loved ones and nation after all.

Hell, if we go the "Grenth could have resurrected the replacement" route, it could be Prince Rurik or any number of other candidates. That'd be nice.

... I really want it to be Prince Rurik now.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking in universe reasoning or strategies, I'm talking narrative, out of universe reasoning. Why bother with the vision if it's not going to be at all impactful.

I still think ArenaNet are making a massive mistake if they're going to go the route of "Oh you needed MacGuffin all along" that we're going to recover in less than a single episode, most likely, the episode after we got that disastrous vision that specifically focused on allies, not MacGuffins.

Yes, yes. All valid options, point still stands: Why show the vision in that case. Why make it such a dramatic storytelling device if nothing is going to come of it because "oh lol we'll just do what the vision didn't show!!!"

Are they limited by her understanding though? That's never said.

And again, it takes away from the narrative significance of that vision if it's any less than as catastrophic as was shown. It cheapens the drama of it.

And? If we apply the same thing to Aurene, what's the point if we win against Kralkatorrik even if Aurene is dead? Which is why she didn't see that victory. Because that's a loss regardless, because we need Aurene to be alive.

I think that's undermining just how demoralising that vision was.

Either it means something or it was pointless to have it in there in the first place, if it's going to be as simple as, "Oh well not EVERY one of those visions was a failure", because that's not what the vision was saying, from a narrative point of view.

The only way the vision/s can be interpreted in a meaningful way to the story is that EVERY possibility currently imaginable by a prophetic dragon is going to fail, not just frontal attacks.

Still available but under certain circumstances, judging by the Commander being, well, resurrected. The Judge seems to have some sort of control over that.

(Still lowkey think the Judge is an aspect of Grenth himself, hence personal-sounding "Remind Balthazar not even a God escapes judgement" quote)

I'm with Konig here, Fissure of Woe to give a bit more explanation to Balthazar's heel-face-turn would be appreciated. Eating Menzies' magic/soul seems like a good solution to this.

> @"Jimbru.6014" said:

> Regarding the human gods, there is much still left unanswered in the lore, but it's become pretty obvious since the content reveals of PoF that #1 the human gods aren't all they're cracked up to be, and #2 there are still many questions left unanswered.

>

> - Balthazar had a half-brother, Menzies. Who were their parents? Orrian scrolls mention Balthazar having a father without naming him. Were they gods all along, or mortals who grew to godhood in some manner? Are all the gods like that?

> - Several, if not all of the gods, had predecessors in their positions, and in all known cases those successions came about by defeat and assumption of power. Kormir was a mortal became a goddess by defeating Abbadon, who succeeded the semi-mythical "Arachnia" in some manner before coming to Tyria as a god. Grenth was a half-god, son of Dwayna and Malchor, who defeated and succeeded Dhuum. It has been implied that Balthazar took his power from some older pre-Tyrian deity.

>

> So clearly, there is much more to the gods' history than we know, and much less to their apparent position relative to the Elder Dragons. Though their inability to defeat the Elder Dragons is likely more a matter of circumstance than power. The gods are probably powerful enough to kill the Elder Dragons (after all, we mere mortals killed two) but the Elder Dragons hold the "fail deadly" trump card of being inherently tied to Tyria's magic, so their deaths would destroy Tyria. Like a terrorist holding a grenade; you could shoot him, but then he would drop the grenade. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Not quite sure what you mean by "not being all they're cracked up to be", if anything they're confirmed to very much be all that they're cracked up to be. (IE: The use of their powers in combat turning an ocean to desert)

That said you are correct that in a conflict between the Gods and the Elder Dragons, the Gods would likely win, the only reason they do not fight is because the Gods know that killing the Dragons destroys Tyria and if something goes wrong and one of them dies, Tyria is also destroyed (Abaddon dying was going to destroy Tyria if Kormir did not absorb his energy, and Dragons cannot absorb Divine magic).

It taking one God dying to destroy the planet compared to it taking three Dragons dying to end up with the same result should tell people all they need to know.

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > > @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > > The elder dragons are tied to the human gods in my opinion, as the humans gods are themselves tied to the natural cycle. The dragons represent the untamed raw Energy of the world, they each represent a different aspect or core principle of existence :

> >

> > People have tried to do this for so long, with it always pattering out before you can get halfway, that ArenaNet eventually put it and its incapability of making a complete connection between the Six Gods and the Elder Dragons [into the game](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dragons_and_Gods). And last year, we got a direct, undeniable, debunk of that theory:

> >

> > > @"Jessica Price.1649" said:

> > > Elder Dragons are native to Tyria, and the human gods are from elsewhere, so as far as them being related: no.

> >

> > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/494601/#Comment_494601

> >

> > Sorry, but that explanation has been thoroughly and fully denied.

>

> While they may be from elsewhere, it doesn't necessarily means they are not tied to the energies themselves though, that was essentially what I pointed out. As was shown in Path of Fire, god and dragon energies can mix, meaning they can tap within the same pool of Energy. They are tied to the world, just as the dragons are, so much so that when Gods influence wane over certain dominions, the place is not destroyed, but Simply "changes hands", much like how the dragons Energy do.

God and Dragon energies cannot mix, the former appears to repel the latter and cannot be corrupted. If you're thinking about Balthazar being able to absorb Dragon magic, he no longer had any 'God' magic as that was stripped from him by the others.

Well that trailer was underwhelming.

And again, whilst that's your opinion, that's not what the Gods are in the Guild Wars universe. But they are still Gods because that's what the creators of the universe say they are.

> I keep my opinion: The "gods" are only named gods by the humans.

And the Dwarves, and the Forgotten, and the Charr, and the Norn, and the Asura...

> So, the gods are useless. We should hunt them to grab that "divinity" - maybe us the mortals can use it in a better way.

What nonsense.

not in this setting though

that's the fundamental point people are making here, you're ascribing your own opinions on what makes a god on a setting where your opinions are wrong and that's not how it works

"They view them", crucial context there, that's an in universe statement. Out of universe, they have been called Gods and named such by the creators of the setting. The views of the other races are incorrect (outright in the case of the sylvari), or correct from a certain point of view, within the lense of their own culture. Because the Norn view them as Spirits does not stop them from being Gods for example, similarly them being part of the Eternal Alchemy does not preclude them from being Gods. Not difficult logic to grasp.

(Side note, Forgotten and Dwarves at the very least also referred to them as Gods, that's 3 different races calling them Gods versus the myriad of independent viewpoints from other races, which is more correct? I think the Forgotten and the Dwarves are much more reliable authorities on the nature of the Gods than sylvari or charr)

It's not a matter of perspective when it comes to out of universe declaration that they are Gods, it's a matter of fact. People who question that are mixing in universe and out of universe.

In universe it's perfectly fine to say that the Gods might not actually be Gods, but we as players know that they ARE Gods because the creators of the setting have SAID so, just because people might believe differently does not make them right.

They very much are Gods in the same vein as the Greek pantheon was considered and D&D gods are. You do not need power over all creation and be omniscient to be a god in the setting, with many such examples in other settings to draw upon to support this.

Using your logic, the likes of Tyr, Mystra, Corellon, Moradin, Helm, Tiamat, Bahamut etc from D&D are "imposters" and not actually gods when all setting material says that they very much are.

Zeus, Ares, Athena, Hades, Poseidon etc also would not be considered gods using your logic.

The GW2 Gods are called such because that is what they are. No debate. The setting material, from an out of universe perspective, says so.

Neither has the Tyrian Pantheon ever acted against the whole of humanity as you claim. (Grenth also took Dhuum's domain)

It's difficult to say. With Abaddon he is gone gone because his essence was entirely absorbed by Kormir.

However, as we can see from the recent story episode regarding Balthazar's sword, that we use to lure Kralkatorrik, it both still had magic attributed to Balthazar himself, and was NOT corrupted from lying about in the Brand, or corrupted/damaged even from proximity to Kralkatorrik himself.

Balthazar was also not a God when he died, which means his soul could feasibly go to the Underworld. See the Judge's parting comment to the Pact Commander before they were resurrected: "Remind Balthazar that not even the Gods escape judgement."

Usually, when a follower of Grenth refers to judgement, they refer to being judged by Grenth himself, rather than just being killed.

I think it would be feasible to see a resurrected Balthazar, having learned his lesson in the most complete way, being given the Divine magic that was previously his back by the others once he's proven himself in helping/being critical to killing Kralkatorrik, and has demonstrated that he knows that what he tried to do was wrong.

The Gods. Based on Aurene having seen every possible combination of allies that she could account for, which would include all the options included in your poll.

I more meant the method chak use would be a solution to filter out different dragon spheres of magic (Zhaitan's, Mordremoth's etc) from the current Elder Dragons so that magic can then be given to whatever or whoever replaces those two respectively. If it can be replicated.

i'm hoping that we don't go the route of "technology yay!" to beat kralkatorrik

A solution to that is the chak, since it seems they can filter dragon magic.

And yet thats the explanation given, it's entirely possible all of Abaddon's magic, divine and otherwise, going wild was even more powerful than what sank Orr in orders of magnitude given what we know about the Gods.

Interesting finds! Particularly that even the remnants of a long-dead god still serve to protect from dragon corruption in some capacity.

> @"Fenom.9457" said:

> That would both be cool and make the other 4 gods enemies which in turn could provide us with the plot of an expansion or something

No.