The plot has not been this bad since War with Scarlet (SPOILERS)

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

> @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> BTW you literally can fight fire with fire https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/fight-fire-with-fire.htm

 

I've actually been fighting an itch to bring that up since the first person used the phrase, because _it does not apply here._

 

Fighting fire with fire, in real life, operates solely on the principle that fuel and/or oxygen are limited resources. Your fire uses it up so that the other fire can't, and, done right, the end result is that it hastens along an outcome where both fires are burned out. As soon as your fire runs off an internal magical reservoir instead of fuel, the whole thing stops working- all introducing more fire does is give you more fire, which is presumably the _exact opposite_ of what you're going for. Unless Sohothin was siphoning off Balthazar's power the whole time to keep itself running, the origin of the phrase couldn't have applied.

 

(Hypothetically, it might be possible to extinguish a magical fire by using up all of the oxygen, but A.) the battle arena is wide open, which, from my limited understanding of the procedure, would make it somewhere between exceedingly difficult and functionally impossible, and B.) our character is standing in the middle of it all, and they happen to need that oxygen to breathe, and are unlikely to appreciate the amount of fire needed to exhaust it.)

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

 

> It actually is an answer. "His own sword" from the time he was a god, was able to overpower the non-god state of Balthazar. How is that at all confusing?

>

> And it's not speculation because ArenaNet themselves stated such.

 

But that's not the question. We all played the game, we know that sword was used to kill him. That's not the part people are having a problem with.

 

You are completely misunderstanding the question. Problem isn't that how come Sohoting was able to kill him, but how come Sohotin was able to kill him since it is his magical sword which implies some sort of connection. It makes no sense that his weakness would be an item with special magical connection to him.

 

You are treating this as if the question is how come Sohotin was physically able to kill Balthazarr but that's not even the question.

 

If it makes no sense that element A is able to be used against X then the answer to the problem cannot be "Yes, the A killed X".

 

The answer you are quoting from Arena Net is not the answer to the question that some people are raising. Its like you ask someone what day it is and they answer January.

 

[derd.6413]

what's with the notion that a connection automaticly means immunity to something.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

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

>

> > It actually is an answer. "His own sword" from the time he was a god, was able to overpower the non-god state of Balthazar. How is that at all confusing?

> >

> > And it's not speculation because ArenaNet themselves stated such.

>

> But that's not the question. We all played the game, we know that sword was used to kill him. That's not the part people are having a problem with.

>

> You are completely misunderstanding the question. Problem isn't that how come Sohoting was able to kill him, but how come Sohotin was able to kill him since it is his magical sword which implies some sort of connection. It makes no sense that his weakness would be an item with special magical connection to him.

>

> You are treating this as if the question is how come Sohotin was physically able to kill Balthazarr but that's not even the question.

>

> If it makes no sense that element A is able to be used against X then the answer to the problem cannot be "Yes, the A killed X".

>

> The answer you are quoting from Arena Net is not the answer to the question that some people are raising. Its like you ask someone what day it is and they answer January.

 

I'm not misunderstanding the question. You're making a false assumption that, were it true, would make the answer false.

 

You're presuming that "because it's his own magic, it cannot harm him" but this is simply not true. And at no point in the franchise has this ever been presented to be the case. A prime example would be the Destroyer of Life in the Edge of Destiny novel. It was killed when Eir took one of its burning arrows and fired it back at the Destroyer of Life's core. The primordial fire of the arrow was the only thing able to withstand the heat of the Destroyer of Life's fire, thus the only thing capable of reaching and harming that core.

 

Under your presumption, this should be impossible because "the arrow is its own magic", but that's not how magic works.

 

Just because Balthazar made Sohothin, doesn't mean he can command its magic at his own whim. Sohothin has, for millennia, been its own separate item independent of Balthazar's state of being. Sohothin might have been made by Balthazar, but it is as much capable of damaging Balthazar as a blacksmith's sword is capable of stabbing the blacksmith because *Sohothin is not the same entity as Balthazar, and an entity's magic can be used against them.*

[Nikolai.3648]

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > @"Nikolai.3648" said:

> > It would have the benefit of not being int his potential enemies’ hands. So yes, he would have gained something from it - it might have even saved his life, as we know by now.

>

> Why would Balthazar think Rytlock would oppose him?

 

Why would he leave it up to chance instead of making sure it can’t happen? He gains nothing from leaving the sword with Rytlock.

 

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> Put it this way: Balthazar promised Rytlock to ignite the sword and open a fast way home in exchange for freedom. If you were in Balthazar's shoes, of being mortal-levels weak at the time, would you really break your promise with a burling charr who's wandered the Mists, and is wielding that flaming sword?

 

Why would he break a promise? I already said that he could for example try to convince Rytlock to give him the sword as part of a trade. He also never promised Rytlock to open a portal in the first place. He had all the cards in his hands there and went for the worst possible option, not even trying to bargain.

 

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> Would you hedge your bets on being able to outrun that charr, to open, pass through, and close a portal before the charr could reach you or the portal?

 

The mists are no small place. He could have just waited a while until Rytlock would eventually leave him alone.

 

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> And would you think that someone who delved into what is literally purgatory would be willing for ANY reason to give up what they delved into for?

 

Yes, I can. More importantly, Balthazar did not know about Rytlock´s obsession with the sword, making this point void.

 

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> If you cannot accept the "I will honor my deals" approach, then it is fully logical thinking that someone who'd probably lose to Logan in an arm wrestling match, and lose to Zojja in a fireball throwing match, to not pick a fight with the guy who wields a divine sword.

 

It would be fully logical to think that someone like that would resort to the options I already mentioned.

 

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > @"Nikolai.3648" said:

> > Why not? We speak about the brain as a limiting factor here. Awakened clearly do not depend on their brain any longer – it is dead after all and does no longer fulfill is biological function. So why would you think they are still bound by the limits of the living?

>

> Who said anything about the brain? Mentality, when souls have personality and thought processes, is more than the physical brain.

 

You did try to justify the difference between spirits and Awakened with the lack of the body, which leaves us with the brain. Spirits are no longer bound by the limits of a body, but neither are the minds of the Awakened.

 

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> You say there's no reason to think the effect exists, except for the fact we're told it exists twice (if not more).

 

We are not told that it is a psychological effect, we are told that they are hungry, which makes a big difference, because it leaves us with the option that the writers thought they need to eat. I also said that we have no reason to think that such a psychological effect exists for the **majority** of Awakened. And I still don’t think Joko would be willing to sacrifice Junundu for that, we know how he treats his soldiers.

 

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > neither do we have any reason to assume one (if it even exists) to be strong enough to not be suppressed by Joko’s mind control if necessary,

>

> Whoever said it couldn't? In both cases, Joko's efforts are placed elsewhere - either because he's busy reorganizing his army, or because he's dead.

 

And since you seem to agree that Joko could have suppressed it (he was after all still able to hold onto all his awakened mind control even when he was caged in the underworld) why would he bother with such a psychological problem? This only leaves their need to eat as an explanation.

 

> @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > BTW you literally can fight fire with fire https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/fight-fire-with-fire.htm

>

> Fighting fire with fire, in real life, operates solely on the principle that fuel and/or oxygen are limited resources. Your fire uses it up so that the other fire can't, and, done right, the end result is that it hastens along an outcome where both fires are burned out. As soon as your fire runs off an internal magical reservoir instead of fuel, the whole thing stops working- all introducing more fire does is give you more fire, which is presumably the _exact opposite_ of what you're going for. Unless Sohothin was siphoning off Balthazar's power the whole time to keep itself running, the origin of the phrase couldn't have applied.

 

That is all certainly true, but the meaning of the phrase nowadays is to resort to the same force the opponent uses in an attempt to hurt them, oftentimes without caring about the collateral damage. I think that using a fire sword against a former God of Fire who uses fire himself against us qualifies for the use of the phrase.

 

 

[norbes.3620]

> @"Nikolai.3648" said:

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

> > > @"Nikolai.3648" said:

> > > It would have the benefit of not being int his potential enemies’ hands. So yes, he would have gained something from it - it might have even saved his life, as we know by now.

> >

> > Why would Balthazar think Rytlock would oppose him?

>

> Why would he leave it up to chance instead of making sure it can’t happen? He gains nothing from leaving the sword with Rytlock.

>

 

Pure Arrogance can be a Point here cuz Balth just could have thought he does NOT NEED the sword and neither that it could cause him harm..

why consider chances at all if u think that those just do NOT exist

 

 

 

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

> > And would you think that someone who delved into what is literally purgatory would be willing for ANY reason to give up what they delved into for?

>

> Yes, I can. More importantly, Balthazar did not know about Rytlock´s obsession with the sword, making this point void.

>

 

Not sure about that it seemed to me that Balthazar knew rytlock were looking for the sword.. reasons for this can be invented if necessary but from my knowledge ist not mentioned ingame

 

 

 

>

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

> > You say there's no reason to think the effect exists, except for the fact we're told it exists twice (if not more).

>

> We are not told that it is a psychological effect, we are told that they are hungry, which makes a big difference, because it leaves us with the option that the writers thought they need to eat. I also said that we have no reason to think that such a psychological effect exists for the **majority** of Awakened. And I still don’t think Joko would be willing to sacrifice Junundu for that, we know how he treats his soldiers.

>

 

Keep in mind that when we reach that Point in Story, that joko was already locked away in the Domain of the lost for an unknown time.

it is possible that the order to use the Worms as Food supply was not from joko but was indeed some sort of inner political conflict between the Generals of the awakened army.

to weaken the influence of the wormqueen let her army dissappear .. how do u do that? eat em!

 

 

 

> > @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > > BTW you literally can fight fire with fire https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/fight-fire-with-fire.htm

> >

> > Fighting fire with fire, in real life, operates solely on the principle that fuel and/or oxygen are limited resources. Your fire uses it up so that the other fire can't, and, done right, the end result is that it hastens along an outcome where both fires are burned out. As soon as your fire runs off an internal magical reservoir instead of fuel, the whole thing stops working- all introducing more fire does is give you more fire, which is presumably the _exact opposite_ of what you're going for. Unless Sohothin was siphoning off Balthazar's power the whole time to keep itself running, the origin of the phrase couldn't have applied.

>

> That is all certainly true, but the meaning of the phrase nowadays is to resort to the same force the opponent uses in an attempt to hurt them, oftentimes without caring about the collateral damage. I think that using a fire sword against a former God of Fire who uses fire himself against us qualifies for the use of the phrase.

>

>

 

Arguing about the usage of words and phrases indeed seem pointless if the persons arguing are agreeing in a lot of ways but Keep pretending they Arent

[Nikolai.3648]

> @"norbes.3620" said:

> > @"Nikolai.3648" said:

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

> > > > @"Nikolai.3648" said:

> > > > It would have the benefit of not being int his potential enemies’ hands. So yes, he would have gained something from it - it might have even saved his life, as we know by now.

> > >

> > > Why would Balthazar think Rytlock would oppose him?

> >

> > Why would he leave it up to chance instead of making sure it can’t happen? He gains nothing from leaving the sword with Rytlock.

> >

>

> Pure Arrogance can be a Point here cuz Balth just could have thought he does NOT NEED the sword and neither that it could cause him harm..

> why consider chances at all if u think that those just do NOT exist

 

Pure arrogance would be an explanation, but even then, getting his hands on Sohothin would secure he at least had a mighty weapon at hand. I would personally like to believe that being betrayed by the other Gods might have also made him a bit paranoid before he regained power, but that is mere speculation.

 

> @"norbes.3620" said:

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

> > > And would you think that someone who delved into what is literally purgatory would be willing for ANY reason to give up what they delved into for?

> >

> > Yes, I can. More importantly, Balthazar did not know about Rytlock´s obsession with the sword, making this point void.

> >

>

> Not sure about that it seemed to me that Balthazar knew rytlock were looking for the sword.. reasons for this can be invented if necessary but from my knowledge ist not mentioned ingame

 

While it seems odd that the sword would be there of all places, I don’t see why Balthazar should know of Rytlock´s ambitions? He simply knows the sword is his best chance to get his chains off, so he offers to relight it, without knowing its value for Rytlock.

 

> @"norbes.3620" said:

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

> > > You say there's no reason to think the effect exists, except for the fact we're told it exists twice (if not more).

> >

> > We are not told that it is a psychological effect, we are told that they are hungry, which makes a big difference, because it leaves us with the option that the writers thought they need to eat. I also said that we have no reason to think that such a psychological effect exists for the **majority** of Awakened. And I still don’t think Joko would be willing to sacrifice Junundu for that, we know how he treats his soldiers.

> >

>

> Keep in mind that when we reach that Point in Story, that joko was already locked away in the Domain of the lost for an unknown time.

> it is possible that the order to use the Worms as Food supply was not from joko but was indeed some sort of inner political conflict between the Generals of the awakened army.

> to weaken the influence of the wormqueen let her army dissappear .. how do u do that? eat em!

 

It would fit into what happened during GW1 with his army, but I am afraid it stops making sense after his death.

 

> @"norbes.3620" said:

> Arguing about the usage of words and phrases indeed seem pointless if the persons arguing are agreeing in a lot of ways but Keep pretending they Arent

 

I am not sure if I should ask if I want to know what you could have meant by that ?

[Eekasqueak.7850]

> @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > BTW you literally can fight fire with fire https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/fight-fire-with-fire.htm

>

> I've actually been fighting an itch to bring that up since the first person used the phrase, because _it does not apply here._

>

> Fighting fire with fire, in real life, operates solely on the principle that fuel and/or oxygen are limited resources. Your fire uses it up so that the other fire can't, and, done right, the end result is that it hastens along an outcome where both fires are burned out. As soon as your fire runs off an internal magical reservoir instead of fuel, the whole thing stops working- all introducing more fire does is give you more fire, which is presumably the _exact opposite_ of what you're going for. Unless Sohothin was siphoning off Balthazar's power the whole time to keep itself running, the origin of the phrase couldn't have applied.

>

> (Hypothetically, it might be possible to extinguish a magical fire by using up all of the oxygen, but A.) the battle arena is wide open, which, from my limited understanding of the procedure, would make it somewhere between exceedingly difficult and functionally impossible, and B.) our character is standing in the middle of it all, and they happen to need that oxygen to breathe, and are unlikely to appreciate the amount of fire needed to exhaust it.)

 

I'm aware, I was just poking fun.

[Ardid.7203]

> @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > BTW you literally can fight fire with fire https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/fight-fire-with-fire.htm

>

> I've actually been fighting an itch to bring that up since the first person used the phrase, because _it does not apply here._

>

> Fighting fire with fire, in real life, operates solely on the principle that fuel and/or oxygen are limited resources. Your fire uses it up so that the other fire can't, and, done right, the end result is that it hastens along an outcome where both fires are burned out. As soon as your fire runs off an internal magical reservoir instead of fuel, the whole thing stops working- all introducing more fire does is give you more fire, which is presumably the _exact opposite_ of what you're going for. Unless Sohothin was siphoning off Balthazar's power the whole time to keep itself running, the origin of the phrase couldn't have applied.

>

> (Hypothetically, it might be possible to extinguish a magical fire by using up all of the oxygen, but A.) the battle arena is wide open, which, from my limited understanding of the procedure, would make it somewhere between exceedingly difficult and functionally impossible, and B.) our character is standing in the middle of it all, and they happen to need that oxygen to breathe, and are unlikely to appreciate the amount of fire needed to exhaust it.)

 

The phrase can be used if you consider the "oxygen" to be something specific to the magic, which IMO make much more sense than trying to relate this to any real world physics. In this case, "fighting fire with fire" means to use the same magic as Balthazar: since the type of magic is the same, there is the possibility one of the two users gets control over the source first, or depletes it, or weakens it enough to win.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

> @"Ardid.7203" said:

> > @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > > BTW you literally can fight fire with fire https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/fight-fire-with-fire.htm

> >

> > I've actually been fighting an itch to bring that up since the first person used the phrase, because _it does not apply here._

> >

> > Fighting fire with fire, in real life, operates solely on the principle that fuel and/or oxygen are limited resources. Your fire uses it up so that the other fire can't, and, done right, the end result is that it hastens along an outcome where both fires are burned out. As soon as your fire runs off an internal magical reservoir instead of fuel, the whole thing stops working- all introducing more fire does is give you more fire, which is presumably the _exact opposite_ of what you're going for. Unless Sohothin was siphoning off Balthazar's power the whole time to keep itself running, the origin of the phrase couldn't have applied.

> >

> > (Hypothetically, it might be possible to extinguish a magical fire by using up all of the oxygen, but A.) the battle arena is wide open, which, from my limited understanding of the procedure, would make it somewhere between exceedingly difficult and functionally impossible, and B.) our character is standing in the middle of it all, and they happen to need that oxygen to breathe, and are unlikely to appreciate the amount of fire needed to exhaust it.)

>

> The phrase can be used if you consider the "oxygen" to be something specific to the magic, which IMO make much more sense than trying to relate this to any real world physics. In this case, "fighting fire with fire" means to use the same magic as Balthazar: since the type of magic is the same, there is the possibility one of the two users gets control over the source first, or depletes it, or weakens it enough to win.

 

If they were drawing from the same source, we should've seen Sohothin's power fluctuate as Balthazar's changed, but we didn't. The only noticeable difference is right at the end, when Rytlock gives the blade to the PC, and doesn't correspond with anything that Balthazar had done to affect his power.

 

If they were able to draw from each other's separate sources, then Balthazar- an ex-god who's explicitly been called out for having enough knowledge of magic to leave our current experts baffled- should've been able to play the game right back, and likely better than a sword without a mind of its own. We don't see that; Sohothin's power levels remain consistent through the fight, and, for that matter, so do Balthazar's.

 

We don't magically starve him into submission, like we did with Zhaitan. We don't suffocate him and leave him sputtering. His last effort, his final attack, is his most powerful ability if you allow it to land, just as powerful as it was when he first tries to use it towards the beginning of the fight, and one more powerful than what we see him using in the fights without Sohothin. We don't deplete him... we just brute force overpower him. If the sword was an integral part of that, then the only explanation that seems to fit is that the divine magic it held was greater than Balthazar's non-divine magic... but that runs into the issue of Balthazar relighting Sohothin while at his weakest, which has already been discussed to death, and of Balthazar's own sword being established to have significant divine power in the latest patch.

[Eekasqueak.7850]

> @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > @"Ardid.7203" said:

> > > @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > > > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > > > BTW you literally can fight fire with fire https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/fight-fire-with-fire.htm

> > >

> > > I've actually been fighting an itch to bring that up since the first person used the phrase, because _it does not apply here._

> > >

> > > Fighting fire with fire, in real life, operates solely on the principle that fuel and/or oxygen are limited resources. Your fire uses it up so that the other fire can't, and, done right, the end result is that it hastens along an outcome where both fires are burned out. As soon as your fire runs off an internal magical reservoir instead of fuel, the whole thing stops working- all introducing more fire does is give you more fire, which is presumably the _exact opposite_ of what you're going for. Unless Sohothin was siphoning off Balthazar's power the whole time to keep itself running, the origin of the phrase couldn't have applied.

> > >

> > > (Hypothetically, it might be possible to extinguish a magical fire by using up all of the oxygen, but A.) the battle arena is wide open, which, from my limited understanding of the procedure, would make it somewhere between exceedingly difficult and functionally impossible, and B.) our character is standing in the middle of it all, and they happen to need that oxygen to breathe, and are unlikely to appreciate the amount of fire needed to exhaust it.)

> >

> > The phrase can be used if you consider the "oxygen" to be something specific to the magic, which IMO make much more sense than trying to relate this to any real world physics. In this case, "fighting fire with fire" means to use the same magic as Balthazar: since the type of magic is the same, there is the possibility one of the two users gets control over the source first, or depletes it, or weakens it enough to win.

>

> If they were drawing from the same source, we should've seen Sohothin's power fluctuate as Balthazar's changed, but we didn't. The only noticeable difference is right at the end, when Rytlock gives the blade to the PC, and doesn't correspond with anything that Balthazar had done to affect his power.

>

> If they were able to draw from each other's separate sources, then Balthazar- an ex-god who's explicitly been called out for having enough knowledge of magic to leave our current experts baffled- should've been able to play the game right back, and likely better than a sword without a mind of its own. We don't see that; Sohothin's power levels remain consistent through the fight, and, for that matter, so do Balthazar's.

>

> We don't magically starve him into submission, like we did with Zhaitan. We don't suffocate him and leave him sputtering. His last effort, his final attack, is his most powerful ability if you allow it to land, just as powerful as it was when he first tries to use it towards the beginning of the fight, and one more powerful than what we see him using in the fights without Sohothin. We don't deplete him... we just brute force overpower him. If the sword was an integral part of that, then the only explanation that seems to fit is that the divine magic it held was greater than Balthazar's non-divine magic... but that runs into the issue of Balthazar relighting Sohothin while at his weakest, which has already been discussed to death, and of Balthazar's own sword being established to have significant divine power in the latest patch.

 

I always assumed Aurene played a big part, it's plausible that she absorbed a lot of magic from being in the warbeast, so when we broke her out the player who is also her "champion" working together with Aurene and with the magical sword to boot were able to defeat him.

[Ardid.7203]

IMO we could always remember it is "magic". And magic often follows rules that reward other things, not just knowledge.

In my fully upgraded mental version of the story, we win because the Divine Fire both Balthy and the Commander are using takes its power from how determined, righteous and ready to give it all the wielder is. We don't win because our weapon is stronger than Balthazar, we win because deep in his mind, Balthazar knew we were right. We win because we were worthy, and the Fire rewarded that.

Of course, that is PURE speculation or even fanfiction... but I like it and think is a better explanation than any pseudo logical attempt to put Tyrian magic under measurable and sensible rules.

[Malediktus.9250]

Yes, the story is full of deep holes

[DanAlcedo.3281]

> @"Weindrasi.3805" said:

> > @"Zoltar MacRoth.7146" said:

> > None of that matters next to the truly horrific fact that Eir is an atrocious parent.

>

> Eir: I wasn't what you needed. I know that. And I'm sorry, but... I had to be true to myself. I had to follow my legend.

> Eir: I didn't want to leave you behind. Believe me. I knew the cost. But if I'd stayed...what good to you would I have been?

>

> Bunch of BS excuses. What Braham needed was HIS MOM.

> Totally agree, terrible parent. Comes back from the dead to say, basically, "sorry not sorry kid, I had better stuff to do"

 

She is a Norn. That a Norn makes not a good mother is the entire point.

[Trise.2865]

Plot holes do not make stories bad. All they do is give pedantic kittens something to point at and feel smart for noticing. Don't confuse self-righteous nit-picking with actual criticism (or worse, actual bad storytelling), as is popular on YouTube... or FoxNews.

"They don't go to the police because it's boring." - Alfred Hitchcock, the father of horror movies.

 

That being said, everything that happened is consistent with the rest of the world. Sohothin can damage Balthazar the same way Caladbolg hurt Mordremoth, or Glint's Spear could hurt Kralkatorrik... or fireballs can harm lava monsters, or lightning bolts can hurt living electricity, or rocks and bullets do anything to living tornadoes. Undead can get drunk the same way golems can, or ghosts. It all depends on what they're drinking and how they expect to feel. Speaking of ghosts, they can do whatever they want wherever they want... but have neither will nor purpose for doing so. Someone who they wouldn't question (for whatever reason) could give that to them.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> Plot holes do not make stories bad.

 

Depends on the audience. Some folks can enjoy a piece without applying logic to it- like you pointed out, the horror genre essentially runs on that crowd- but some people can't. There are different kinds of enjoyment, some of it derived from atmosphere, some of it by masterful arrangement of plot elements, some of it from sheer rule of cool. There's a niche for just about anything out there.

 

That said, a lore forum isn't going to attract all kinds equally, certainly not one entering its seventh year. The names who stick around are those who continue to have something to discuss, and when the discussion goes 'Wasn't that thrilling?', 'Oh yeah, it totally was!' it tends to die down pretty quickly, because there's nothing more to add beyond that point. That isn't to say that those merits of the story are worth less, just that this isn't the place their advocates tend to congregate around. 'Nit-picking', as you put it, gives you a whole lot more to talk about.

 

And, for what it's worth, as someone who does struggle to enjoy a story that draws attention to it's plot holes- noticing does not make me feel smart, or superior. In fact, I tend to take it for granted that others have noticed the same thing. I don't _get_ anything out of it- it's just a disappointment, or, in some cases, an irritant.

[Nikolai.3648]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> "They don't go to the police because it's boring." - Alfred Hitchcock, the father of horror movies.

 

And Freud is often considered the father of modern psychology. I don’t have to tell you that a lot of the things he believed in are no longer supported by any sane psychologist. Someone being a prominent figure regarding an issue does not automatically make them right regarding everything they said about it. I would still consider a horror movie that applies such human behavior as one with a cheap plot, the only movies which can get away with it are trash films.

 

But we are not talking about trash- or even horror movies here (ok, maybe if you want to say that the story is so bad it could be considered horror…) but a fantasy universe. While there are certain plot holes accepted as a given (most of the time, some universes have explanations for them), like magic ignoring thermodynamics and other basic laws of nature, societies that could not really exist as stable as they are depicted, ect, the audience still has the right to expect continuity and consistency to a certain extent. A single plot hole may be something we can all overlook, but a higher number may very well delude the feelings we can put into the story and the characters fates. A good example was is the discussion about how cheap death may come across. While not necessary a plot hole, it feels as if somehow it makes us care less about the characters. A plot hole is a bigger version of that: Why care about the fate of Kingdom A when I know that there is no consistency and it will be fine if it is destroyed, since it will probably come back later like Kingdom B did, despite it making no sense. Why would I care about Character C dying when Character D next to them could have easily rescued them but did not without any real reason for not doing so? The first time it may be shocking, and you may question the reasonings of D, but after it continues happening, you start to just don’t care anymore. This is the audience losing interest in a story because of its lack of integrity, which is bad writing. And a plot hole is nothing less than a giant hole of integrity, and such also bad writing.

 

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> All they do is give pedantic kittens something to point at and feel smart for noticing. Don't confuse self-righteous nit-picking with actual criticism (or worse, actual bad storytelling), as is popular on YouTube... or FoxNews.

 

I think this here pretty much sums up my opinion on what you said there:

 

> @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> And, for what it's worth, as someone who does struggle to enjoy a story that draws attention to it's plot holes- noticing does not make me feel smart, or superior. In fact, I tend to take it for granted that others have noticed the same thing. I don't _get_ anything out of it- it's just a disappointment, or, in some cases, an irritant.

 

I would also add: Calling someone pedantic for expecting consistency in a story and trying to make them look like baby cats for criticizing plot holes that take away from the joy the audience can get out of the story (in a lore forum) with the hope that some of the writers may actually take what was said to heart, sounds like you might have problems with people disliking something you don’t. I would be careful with your phrasing there, it may come across as rude or childish.

[Zoltar MacRoth.7146]

> @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:

> > @"Weindrasi.3805" said:

> > > @"Zoltar MacRoth.7146" said:

> > > None of that matters next to the truly horrific fact that Eir is an atrocious parent.

> >

> > Eir: I wasn't what you needed. I know that. And I'm sorry, but... I had to be true to myself. I had to follow my legend.

> > Eir: I didn't want to leave you behind. Believe me. I knew the cost. But if I'd stayed...what good to you would I have been?

> >

> > Bunch of BS excuses. What Braham needed was HIS MOM.

> > Totally agree, terrible parent. Comes back from the dead to say, basically, "sorry not sorry kid, I had better stuff to do"

>

> She is a Norn. That a Norn makes not a good mother is the entire point.

 

If that's the point, it's not a good one. It's accusing an entire race of being bad parents which is not only falling back on the planet-of-hats syndrome of the early Trek shows but not statistically likely. There are bound to be good Norn moms and dads. There are bound to be those who defy their cultural conventions to do their own thing.

Eir happens to be of the type to put herself first, which is fine. That's the majority in her culture and she servers an important role in representing that and the archetype of a bad parent. She is... was... a tragic figure.

 

Was, because after her appearance in the last LS episode, she's gone from tragic to despicable. She comes back from the dead (apparently a one-time thing only) and uses that brief moment to further emotionally scar her son. She shows no remorse, no regret, not even a shred of guilty or even the empathy to use her last chance to even pretend to her son that she loves him more than herself. She won't even give him that. Would it have hurt her 'legend' to show a little love?

 

And let's not forget she also took the opportunity to bully Aurene. No pep talk. No charisma. Just you-kill-kralk-now. Apparently, Eir wasn't content with scarring one living being on her brief hiatus from the afterlife. Are we sure Kralk is the real villain here?

 

Anyway, does this make the plot bad? Not at all. It explains a lot about Braham and makes me feel for him. It shows that he's a much better person than his mom, caring more for those around him, especially Taimi. He succeeds where his mom failed. That's actually motivational story writing, especially for those of us who've experienced parenting like Eir's ourselves.

[Zaraki.5784]

I must say that I agree, the development I'm most interested in is "Where will we go after Kralkatorrik?", this should say enough of my interest in current arc...

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

> @"Zoltar MacRoth.7146" said:

 

> Was, because after her appearance in the last LS episode, she's gone from tragic to despicable. She comes back from the dead (apparently a one-time thing only) and uses that brief moment to further emotionally scar her son. She shows no remorse, no regret, not even a shred of guilty or even the empathy to use her last chance to even pretend to her son that she loves him more than herself. She won't even give him that. Would it have hurt her 'legend' to show a little love?

 

It depends on what you read into the delivery, but for me, I did hear a little remorse... but only a little. She's a hyper-focused character who doesn't do well with distraction at the best of times, and what she spared for Braham, she tried to use to encourage him to let go. Holding on to her has been doing him, and the people around him, more harm than good. She wasn't remotely tactful about it, of course. She _is_ still a bad mother in my book. I think she recognized that, and in such a situation, encouraging Braham to look elsewhere was probably the best act of caring she could manage.

 

> And let's not forget she also took the opportunity to bully Aurene. No pep talk. No charisma. Just you-kill-kralk-now. Apparently, Eir wasn't content with scarring one living being on her brief hiatus from the afterlife. Are we sure Kralk is the real villain here?

I'll chalk that up to stress and a very tight time limit, since it wasn't particularly in-character for Eir, but yeah. Methinks Glint may not be a great parent either.

[Zoltar MacRoth.7146]

> @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > @"Zoltar MacRoth.7146" said:

>

> > Was, because after her appearance in the last LS episode, she's gone from tragic to despicable. She comes back from the dead (apparently a one-time thing only) and uses that brief moment to further emotionally scar her son. She shows no remorse, no regret, not even a shred of guilty or even the empathy to use her last chance to even pretend to her son that she loves him more than herself. She won't even give him that. Would it have hurt her 'legend' to show a little love?

>

> It depends on what you read into the delivery, but for me, I did hear a little remorse... but only a little. She's a hyper-focused character who doesn't do well with distraction at the best of times, and what she spared for Braham, she tried to use to encourage him to let go. Holding on to her has been doing him, and the people around him, more harm than good. She wasn't remotely tactful about it, of course. She _is_ still a bad mother in my book. But she recognized that too, and in that situation, encouraging Braham to look elsewhere was an act of caring.

>

> > And let's not forget she also took the opportunity to bully Aurene. No pep talk. No charisma. Just you-kill-kralk-now. Apparently, Eir wasn't content with scarring one living being on her brief hiatus from the afterlife. Are we sure Kralk is the real villain here?

> I'll chalk that up to stress and a very tight time limit, since it wasn't particularly in-character for Eir, but yeah. Methinks Glint may not be a great parent either.

 

Good points.

[Ardid.7203]

Being a Norn and chasing your Legend shouldn't force you to be a bad or absent parent. In fact, your Legend may perfectly be about being a warrior with a child (Lone Wolf and Cub: few examples of a bigger legend than their story), or even about being such a Legendary Parent (No combat needed, just properly raising 20 childs on your own: super Legendary). Norn Legends aren't fixed only to combat or hunt.

 

But I digress. The point is Eir DID left Braham super alone in her pursuit of her legend. This is logic and coherent. But THEN Braham grow up with resent and insecurity because it. And THAT doesn't make sense. If the Norn are known for leaving their houses to pursue heroics, then MOST of their childs will be:

a) Left alone at a very young age, so growing as an orphan shouldn't be specially difficult or sad, because it should simply be the custom.

b) Left in charge of specialized nurturing organizations, destined specially to support this kind of known and accepted behavior.

 

A Norn growing bitter because their parents abandoned him/her is absurd. If their society is stable, it should be capable of answer the Legend's call effect over children somehow. A society driven by individual enterprises can't be expected to have conventional families constructed by moder human standars: nuclear, biparental, co-resident, consanguine... It just don't make sense. Compare Braham's trauma with the Charr PC father's story. The Norn should have an equivalent to the charr's fahrars, It's just logical.

 

[Teratus.2859]

> @"Rikimaru.7890" said:

> **Killing Balthazar with Sohothin**

> Yes that makes a ton of sense - killing the God of Fire with a firey sword. I mean this is like trying to drown a fish. More over Sohothin was by lore Balthazar's own sword once, also Balthazar himself reignited it when it lost it's power inside The Mists. If this was taken seriously then once we reach Balthazar he would be like: _Oh nice sword you got there!_ **snaps fingers and Sohophin loses all it's powers** _Woops how did that happen?_

>

It's not about fire it's about power.. Balthazar re-ignited the sword yes but the sword is a powerful artifact in it's own right.

Balthazar was trapped via magical bonds yet still able to re-ignite the sword which was then used to break those chains.. you could easily argue if he had the power to ignite the sword why didn't he just break the chains himself?

Another question would be if Balthazar was so powerful why did he even bother using a sword or even Sohothin itself back in the day?

 

The power of a being and the power of an artifact are not the same thing. Balthazar had the power to re-awaken the sword but it being able to free him strongly suggests that it's power is it's own and it wouldn't be so easy even for Balthazar to strip that power away again.

Add to that it was poetic.. he wanted to kill the crystal dragon with a spear made from the crytsal dragon itself.. using the dragons power against it and was in turn killed by a sword he once owned and re-awakened with his own power by someone he once killed in battle.

Gotta love irony :P

 

> **The Ghost Army**

> Do you mean to tell me that ghosts can actually do whatever they want? Then why do they always hang out near their resting place? I mean even if we assume only certain ghosts can do that, then there still should be some ghosts walking freely around the world. When Palawa Joko took over Elona the Awakened and the living started to coexist with one another, so there should also be some ghosts that continue to roam among the living.

>

Ghosts linger in their place of death due to unfinished business or other specific reason for doing so.

They're not interested in the world because they're no longer part of it, but seemingly yes they can in theory roam around the world if they so choose to do so it's just that for the most part they have no interest in anything other than finishing their unfinished business and moving on or protecting specific places or artifacts of importance.

 

> **Kralkatorrik inside The Mists**

> I have mixed feeling about this one since it does raise the tension up a lot, however it should be game over at this point. I mean The Mists have unlimited magic so I don't see how we can hope to stop Kralkatorrik at this point. It doesn't make sense that he is even interested in attacking Tyria at this point, since all the magic Tyria has to offer is nothing but a fraction of what The Mists have to offer. Are we are suppose to lure Kralkatorrik out of The Mists? Why would he ever leave them? He wants to kill Aurene sure but I'm pretty sure fighting inside The Mists would be a better option for him. So it's more logical for Kralkatorrik to wait for us to come to him, since we have no choice anyway, than to risk it and go back to Tyria.

> It also makes no sense why he would want Balthazar's sword so badly, not only do The Mists have way more magic to offer but also the Sword lost it's power when we found it and had to reignite it. One of the methods to do it was using a brandstorm lightning, which in reality would be Kralkatorrik's own power, so I really don't see how the sword would be so attractive to him.

>

Personally I love this story ark and I am absolutely loving how well the devs have been pushing the narrative of how powerful Kralkatorrik is becoming.

For the first time in Gw2.. I actually feel like an Elder Dragon is living up to it's title.

 

I am hoping at this point that Anet are setting us up for a massive loss against Kralkatorrik, Yes he's becoming godlike powerful and borderline unstoppable and I want him to continue down this path and potentially even drive us out of Tyria in either into Cantha or an entirely new region of the world until we can figure out some way to actually deal with him.

If we kill him in the living world or by some lackluster method as we have done with the last 2 I am going to be seriously annoyed to the point where I'll more or less stop caring about the Elder Dragons completely.

 

I want these things to be the apocalyptic nightmares they've been promoted as since Gw2's main story was first revealed to the public.. and Kralkatorrik is finally doing it.

I want to fight him.. I want to loose.. I want my character to be completely overwhelmed, outclassed and rendered completely powerless by a walking hurricane!

And I want to see that we are the villain role come around fully as our character is forced to run away like a coward and leave countless people at the mercy of an Elder Dragon.. and when we finally return to take him down we'll be almost as despised as the dragon itself.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

> @"Ardid.7203" said:

 

> But I digress. The point is Eir DID left Braham super alone in her pursuit of her legend. This is logic and coherent. But THEN Braham grow up with resent and insecurity because it. And THAT doesn't make sense. If the Norn are known for leaving their houses to pursue heroics, then MOST of their childs will be:

> a) Left alone at a very young age, so growing as an orphan shouldn't be specially difficult or sad, because it should simply be the custom.

Something being commonplace doesn't stop it from being difficult or sad. There are all sorts of 'customary' difficulties that people are expected to live with. It just means that coping mechanisms, functional and dysfunctional, are also commonplace.

> b) Left in charge of specialized nurturing organizations, destined specially to support this kind of known and accepted behavior.

Heh. A norn organization?

 

What we've seen, though, is that the culture _does_ have an accepted solution- in situations where both parents don't stay (and we do see several examples of that in-game), one of the parents remains behind to raise the kid. All evidence is that this works fairly well for them; Braham isn't a typical example. He had two strokes of bad luck, in that his father died several years later... [and on his deathbed forbid anyone from telling Eir, so she wouldn't be tempted to come back.](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Braham%27s_Story) _That_ is going to have the potential to mess with a kid when the mother suddenly becomes a major part of his life again, norn or not, but it's also going to be a rare enough case that it doesn't undermine the 'system' as a whole.

 

And, on that note, it's also worth observing that Braham doesn't seem to have been terribly bad off either. By all accounts, he was happy when his father was alive, and while he afterward grew to resent Eir, it didn't have a crippling impact on his life. He was still getting on quite well until Cragstead was attacked; it was only due to circumstance (and the writers) that he was stripped of everything he'd held on to and left in a vulnerable enough position that losing Eir could become what it did.

 

> A Norn growing bitter because their parents abandoned him/her is absurd. If their society is stable, it should be capable of answer the Legend's call effect over children somehow. A society driven by individual enterprises can't be expected to have conventional families constructed by moder human standars: nuclear, biparental, co-resident, consanguine... It just don't make sense. Compare Braham's trauma with the Charr PC father's story. The Norn should have an equivalent to the charr's fahrars, It's just logical.

 

Setting aside that the fahrar model couldn't work for the norn, who said their society has to be stable? None of the other four are. Unstable societies don't just make for better story fodder, they're also relatively common.

 

 

[Zoltar MacRoth.7146]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> I want these things to be the apocalyptic nightmares they've been promoted as since Gw2's main story was first revealed to the public.. and Kralkatorrik is finally doing it.

> I want to fight him.. I want to lose.. I want my character to be completely overwhelmed, outclassed and rendered completely powerless by a walking hurricane!

> And I want to see that we are the villain role come around fully as our character is forced to run away like a coward and leave countless people at the mercy of an Elder Dragon.. and when we finally return to take him down we'll be almost as despised as the dragon itself.

 

Sort of a ..dark knight, you might say? I like it.