Curse

Lonesamurai · Aug 10, 2009, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Actually that is the thing about Warhammer, the destruction side are definitely the classic "Evil", however, the Order side are not "Good", misguided, but thats why they are Order and not Good

Cool Down · Aug 10, 2009, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

Actually that is the thing about Warhammer, the destruction side are definitely the classic "Evil", however, the Order side are not "Good", misguided, but thats why they are Order and not Good

Yeah in warhammer it's "the lesser evil" also like in The Witcher

snaek · Aug 10, 2009, 03:43 PM // 15:43

good vs evil would be a bad idea imo because it'd be annoying to only be able to group with people of similar race. gw already has class discrimination, gw2 does not need race discrimination.

also, i hope the races don't get anything special but looks and pve storyline... otherwise my character select screen will probably end up lookin like this: human necro, charr necro, asuran necro, norn necro, sylvari necro....

TottWriter · Aug 10, 2009, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

good vs evil would be a bad idea imo because it'd be annoying to only be able to group with people of similar race. gw already has class discrimination, gw2 does not need race discrimination.

also, i hope the races don't get anything special but looks and pve storyline... otherwise my character select screen will probably end up lookin like this: human necro, charr necro, asuran necro, norn necro, sylvari necro....

Totally with you on that one.

I really don't see there being a good v evil thing playing out in GW2. That's the sort of element that probably crops up in most MMOs to get around the fact that there isn't always that much by way of story. In playing WoW, I quickly picked up that the endgame is basically 'raiding other faction's towns' - the dev's have already said that servers will be more like our current districts, in that you can port between them (though, of course, there's no knowing yet whether they changed their mind about that).

GW manages to have quite a few forms of PvP now, even without factoring in Alliance battles. Assuming that GW2 is a sort of 'GW, only better' (which is why they were doing it, so we might as well hope that it is), I can see it being more likely that they'll offer PvP in a similar manner - a Battle Islands equivalent, which means introducing PvP arenas just as before.

Arenas end up being totally separate from the storyline, which means that there is no need for a Good vs Evil idea to facilitate them. And as has been pointed out, splitting the player base like that works out rather permanent. Even if big games such as WoW can get away with that because they have huge numbers of people playing all the time, ANet hasn't reached that league - they're not going to want GW2 to end up like GW is now in a hurry.

HawkofStorms · Aug 10, 2009, 04:21 PM // 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool Down

Yeah in warhammer it's "the lesser evil" also like in The Witcher

Gotta love racist Elves.

Konig Des Todes · Aug 10, 2009, 04:40 PM // 16:40

There is no good vs evil in the playable races. The world isn't in black and white.

True, the humans and charr hate each other, but it isn't good vs evil. It would be more accurate to say good & anti-heroes & 3 neutrals vs evil (which would be whatever threats along with the Ancient Dragons).

Cool Down · Aug 10, 2009, 05:07 PM // 17:07

Well, the heading might have said good and evil, but what i meant by that really, was just two opposite factions fighting eachother, like good and evil

Sword Hammer Axe · Aug 10, 2009, 05:11 PM // 17:11

GW2 is going to be a good vs. evil relation. There might be conflicts between some factions like Human vs. Charr. But the real foes have already been announced:
Great demonic dragon's with demonic armies that terrorise the world. Makes sense that the Charr and the Humans would set aside their differences to fight a being that can possibly destroy the world XD

MastrSplintr18 · Aug 10, 2009, 06:14 PM // 18:14

So I wonder what alliances are going to be based on...

Lihinel · Aug 10, 2009, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Two things:

1.) I don't agree that the humans in GW are good by any means.
They are all bastards, bathing in self-rightiousness, while slaughtering everyone who does not support them right away and without any regards for the former inhabitants of the lands they invade.
Plus they are sore losers too, anyone remember Orr going kami kaze because of the wannabe lich?

2.) The dragons are not out to destroy THE WORLD.
They are out to destroy the other living beeings, difference.

Thats like you moaning the lawn, your sick idea of a nice environment.
Who cares about the plant & bug genocide anyway?
Yes, I am talking to you garden nazis out there!

They seem more like Joko, though they don't seems to share his ideas of ruling as a king living in luxury and ruling over wealthy nations inmidst a garden with living and death armies at his disposal. And hey, maybe "the gods" stole their power back in the day.

hallomik · Aug 11, 2009, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Given that there are 5 known playable races, and knowing what decisions the designers have previously made in GW1, here are my thoughts on one possible game approach.

Each starting race will have two allied races and two opposed races. If you imagine 5 points on a star, the two points nearest to you will be your ally races, and the two opposite side points will be your foe races. Here is how it could work:

-- Human --
Allies: Asura & Silvari
Foes: Norn and Charr

Made up reasons why: Humans partnership with Asura and opposition to Charr well established in GW1. Silvari befriends humans upon their creation due to humans role in preventing their creation from being stamped out. Norn break away from humans over time and consider them too "weak" a race.

-- Asura --
Allies: Human and Charr
Foes: Norn and Silvari

Asura and Human partnership already established. Asura and Charr form grudging alliance based on their mutual respect for technology.

Asura consider Norn anti-intellectual bullies. Asura and Silvari have no common ground due to Asuran's emphasis on technology and Silvari's emphasis on nature. Although they could be friends, early misunderstanding during Silvari's emergence poisons their relationship.

-- Charr --
Allies: Asura and Norn
Foes: Silvari and Humans

Charr and Norn develop mutual respect of their common warlike nature. The Charr share technology development with Asura.

Charr see humans and Silvari as weak prey.

-- Norn --
Allies: Silvari and Charr
Foes: Human and Asura

The Norn share love of nature with Silvari and love of battle with Charr. Territorial misunderstandings with humans have erased historical alliances. Norns see Asurans as elitist jerks who don't do their own fighting directly and don't properly revere the natural world.

-- Silvari --
Allies: Norn and Humans
Foes: Charr and Asura

Humans helped the emergence of Silvari and they are strong allies. Silvari and Norn share a reverence for the natural world. Silvari see Charr as despoilers of the earth and the Asuran technological obsession is not understood or appreciated by the Silvari.

The early part of the game will lead you to common quests with your allies and forays into "enemy" territory. For instance, humans will have their own quest chains, but will also be able to share in the designated Asuran and Silvari quests.

However, during the latter stages of the game, the quarreling races must unite to oppose a recognized common threat. Each race will have quest chains that will enable them to get over their disagreements with their "natural" foes, and end game dungeons can combine players of all races. Of course, this also applies to realm vs. realm PVP.

One nice thing about doing it this way is that any person can group with 60% of the players (versus only 1/2 for the standard two-sided arrangement), but there are still plenty of opportunities for in-the-world PVP encounters.

draxynnic · Aug 11, 2009, 02:58 AM // 02:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eliz Genevieve

Huh, as far as I know, we didn't kill the leader of the Charr *or their equal, if they have one, which I doubt*, we didn't kill their last Hierophant, and we didn't completly destroyed the Charr HQ's. The Stone Summit are pwned.

Actually, we did so at least once (Hierophant Burntsoul), possibly twice (Bonfaaz Burntfur). However, the Charr still had a sustainable population, while all evidence suggests that the Stone Summit population has been pretty close to being wiped out (and it's possible that the ritual of attunement with the Great Dwarf caught up with any survivors eventually). While the White Mantle could survive by recruiting disaffected Krytans to their side, the Stone Summit don't have a population base to recruit from. I would be very surprised if they survive to GW2.

WARNING! Diversion ahead!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

Actually that is the thing about Warhammer, the destruction side are definitely the classic "Evil", however, the Order side are not "Good", misguided, but thats why they are Order and not Good

There was an official word a little over a decade ago that the theme was civilisation and progress versus destruction and anarchy rather than good versus evil. That said, few realistic worlds do have any entire nations of good - instead they have nations that on the whole behave like civilised nations in our own world, and can produce good people as well as evil.

It annoys me when people say there are no good guys in Warhammer. While, as explained above, there is no 'race of white hats', I'd certainly rather have Ulthuan or the Empire or Karaz Ankor as a neighbour than a bunch of blood-crazed maniacs. This makes them the good guys in comparison, just like in World War 2 the US and Britain were good guys in comparison to who they were fighting (some of the things both nations have got up to are as bad as anything any Order race in Warhammer has done, while I doubt any country on Earth has plumbed the depths of evil that Skaven or Naggarothi society holds up as an ideal).

HawkofStorms · Aug 11, 2009, 03:04 AM // 03:04

To quote Line [Protection Henchman] in Asura GWEN outposts
"Every time I get used to the fact that humans are in charge of everything, we come across some other creatures that think they're in the running. We usually blow them up."

So... yeah, I don't expect that attitude to go away anytime soon.

Lonesamurai · Aug 11, 2009, 01:27 PM // 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

WARNING! Diversion ahead!
There was an official word a little over a decade ago that the theme was civilisation and progress versus destruction and anarchy rather than good versus evil. That said, few realistic worlds do have any entire nations of good - instead they have nations that on the whole behave like civilised nations in our own world, and can produce good people as well as evil.

It annoys me when people say there are no good guys in Warhammer. While, as explained above, there is no 'race of white hats', I'd certainly rather have Ulthuan or the Empire or Karaz Ankor as a neighbour than a bunch of blood-crazed maniacs. This makes them the good guys in comparison, just like in World War 2 the US and Britain were good guys in comparison to who they were fighting (some of the things both nations have got up to are as bad as anything any Order race in Warhammer has done, while I doubt any country on Earth has plumbed the depths of evil that Skaven or Naggarothi society holds up as an ideal).

I used to work for Games Workshop, I used to sell Warhammer fantasy and 40K

Its quite cut and dry in Fantasy, the bad guys are evil and want to kill everyone else, the good guys want to survive, but the good guys are dodgy too and so easily can fall to the "Dark Side", especially thosethat use any form of magic, as all magic comes from the Warp, the realm of chaos and the stuff that makes chaos

However its easier to see the good from the bad in 40k, and theres only one "Good" race now, the Tau are the youngest race, they have no psykers and no use of the Warp, they also use Star trek style warp engines and have no touch with the warp and so are not corruptible in the same way, however the "Greater Good" can be corrupted by good rhetoric and used against them, but hey, thats the way of the real world too

the point is, Good and Evil are different for everyone, and far too black and white for everyone to agree on unless in a game the devs say, "These are the good guys, these are the bad guys" and as WoW has shown, most players prefer to play Horde anyway for that sense of getting away with things they couldn't do in the real world

AmbientMelody · Aug 11, 2009, 02:29 PM // 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

Given that there are 5 known playable races, and knowing what decisions the designers have previously made in GW1, here are my thoughts on one possible game approach.

Each starting race will have two allied races and two opposed races. If you imagine 5 points on a star, the two points nearest to you will be your ally races, and the two opposite side points will be your foe races. Here is how it could work:

-- Human --
Allies: Asura & Silvari
Foes: Norn and Charr

Made up reasons why: Humans partnership with Asura and opposition to Charr well established in GW1. Silvari befriends humans upon their creation due to humans role in preventing their creation from being stamped out. Norn break away from humans over time and consider them too "weak" a race.

-- Asura --
Allies: Human and Charr
Foes: Norn and Silvari

Asura and Human partnership already established. Asura and Charr form grudging alliance based on their mutual respect for technology.

Asura consider Norn anti-intellectual bullies. Asura and Silvari have no common ground due to Asuran's emphasis on technology and Silvari's emphasis on nature. Although they could be friends, early misunderstanding during Silvari's emergence poisons their relationship.

-- Charr --
Allies: Asura and Norn
Foes: Silvari and Humans

Charr and Norn develop mutual respect of their common warlike nature. The Charr share technology development with Asura.

Charr see humans and Silvari as weak prey.

-- Norn --
Allies: Silvari and Charr
Foes: Human and Asura

The Norn share love of nature with Silvari and love of battle with Charr. Territorial misunderstandings with humans have erased historical alliances. Norns see Asurans as elitist jerks who don't do their own fighting directly and don't properly revere the natural world.

-- Silvari --
Allies: Norn and Humans
Foes: Charr and Asura

Humans helped the emergence of Silvari and they are strong allies. Silvari and Norn share a reverence for the natural world. Silvari see Charr as despoilers of the earth and the Asuran technological obsession is not understood or appreciated by the Silvari.

The early part of the game will lead you to common quests with your allies and forays into "enemy" territory. For instance, humans will have their own quest chains, but will also be able to share in the designated Asuran and Silvari quests.

However, during the latter stages of the game, the quarreling races must unite to oppose a recognized common threat. Each race will have quest chains that will enable them to get over their disagreements with their "natural" foes, and end game dungeons can combine players of all races. Of course, this also applies to realm vs. realm PVP.

One nice thing about doing it this way is that any person can group with 60% of the players (versus only 1/2 for the standard two-sided arrangement), but there are still plenty of opportunities for in-the-world PVP encounters.

It doesn't make any sense, to be honest. I think you have mixed up an alliance with simple peace, trade and intellectual exchange agreement for mutual benefit.

Also, the Asuran are the least race to ally anybody, given their nature. They either are neutral to someone, at war with or enslaved by (and the latter won't happen until a race more intelligent and advanced then Asuras wages successful war on them). The Charr are not very likely to enter a solid alliance either, besides periodic alliances to achieve a common goal. Similar for Norn, they don't need allies nor seek them, unless in great danger such as Destroyers or Dragons. Humans in fact shouldn't be represented as a 'race' but as a bunch of many different nations, with many different traditions, goals and diplomatic standings with other nations as well as races as a whole. I can pretty much imagine survived Ascalonians from the North fighting with Krytans all over again, or better yet - next Guild Wars. Same for corsairs from Elona raiding Canthan and Tyrian shores or Istan going into war with Kourna or Vabbi for whatever the reason. For the same reason Sylvari might consider Shining Blade members as friends and allies, but any other trespassing human as hostile in their territory. I can imagine for instance Asura at peace with everyone but Sylvari, Norn at war with the Charr and resentful towards Ascalonians in a ceasefire, Charr fighting both Humans and Norn at the same time and small and bigger wars between human nations, or even clan feuds in Norn and Charr society. If anything, I suspect further decentralisation of power, more, more and more conflicts around and at the same time awakened evil getting stronger and stronger, when everyone is absorbed with fighting the neighbours, possibly plotting another plan to take over the Tyria (as entire world, not continent) in old Prophecies fashion, where it's not really exact who and why is behind the currently happening events. I could go as far as to evil adversaries inciting wars between the Great Races.

Mordakai · Aug 11, 2009, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

the point is, Good and Evil are different for everyone, and far too black and white for everyone to agree on unless in a game the devs say, "These are the good guys, these are the bad guys" and as WoW has shown, most players prefer to play Horde anyway for that sense of getting away with things they couldn't do in the real world

Horde is not (necessarily) evil, though!

Undead aren't evil, they are just cursed with unlife.

Tauren certainly aren't evil.

Even Orcs and Trolls are good now in WarCraft.

The only race that could be considered evil is the Blood Elves, but I admit I get lost in all the "rebels" vs "hardcore" Blood Elves lore, and which ones we are supposed to be playing.

Lonesamurai · Aug 11, 2009, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Horde is not (necessarily) evil, though!

Undead aren't evil, they are just cursed with unlife.

Tauren certainly aren't evil.

Even Orcs and Trolls are good now in WarCraft.

The only race that could be considered evil is the Blood Elves, but I admit I get lost in all the "rebels" vs "hardcore" Blood Elves lore, and which ones we are supposed to be playing.

Exactly, they aren't evil, as has been shown in this thread, but people see them as evil and see them as the bad side that they can play to play the bad guys and do those things that are morally wrong, like ganking, etc

but the same goes for the dark elves and Orcs & Goblins of Warhammer, hell, the Orcs and Gobbos, if corralled and taught could be useful

Mordakai · Aug 11, 2009, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

Exactly, they aren't evil, as has been shown in this thread, but people see them as evil and see them as the bad side that they can play to play the bad guys and do those things that are morally wrong, like ganking, etc

but the same goes for the dark elves and Orcs & Goblins of Warhammer, hell, the Orcs and Gobbos, if corralled and taught could be useful

Well, here we get into the difference between "players" and their "characters."

There are Paladins who go around killing low level players on PvP servers too, they are not being very "Paladiny".

So while I'm sure there will be much name-calling and such in Charr vs Human PvP areas, in the end, I doubt this has much to do with players "being in character" and more to do with people just having an excuse to act like an ass.

(which I guess is your point, except I don't think it's limited to the "evil" side)

Lonesamurai · Aug 11, 2009, 03:26 PM // 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Well, here we get into the difference between "players" and their "characters."

There are Paladins who go around killing low level players on PvP servers too, they are not being very "Paladiny".

So while I'm sure there will be much name-calling and such in Charr vs Human PvP areas, in the end, I doubt this has much to do with players "being in character" as more to do with people just having an excuse to act like an ass.

(which I guess is your point, except I don't think it's limited to the "evil" side)

no your right its not limited to the "evil" side, but even good can be jackasses sometimes

lilDeath · Aug 11, 2009, 09:11 PM // 21:11

There are different plot lines to make a race or even a specific line of a race to be good or evil.

Gadd for sure is one evil mofo Asura. He got some wicked teeth, reminds me of a Gremlin. And he just used people for his own gain.

The Charr can definitely be evil, with the right plot.

The same for humans.

And do not think the Norn are just Friendly Jotuns, in EotN they are virtually the biggest creatures, so nothing can intimidate them, especially when they think an army is made up of 4-5 Norn. In GW2 there will be DRAGONS! Wooohoo!!

They should add Dwarves to the playable races list. They can be some evil buggers.

And don't forget, maybe the Asura and Norn gets their freak on over some Ale, and then ... Whoa, the evil little / big SoB that comes out of that mix... *shivers*