Talk:Blighting Tree

Is there any source for the Pale Tree creating Sylvari from corpses? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.202.32 (talk).

As far as I know, there isn't one, but article isn't making that claim. (Edit: I was mistaken, didn't read the spoiler properly.) The Pale Tree doesn't necessarily have the same abilities as the Blighting Trees just because she's an uncorrupted version of them; it may be the case that the corruption is the only reason they can use corpses at all. Further, there is a source that implies the Pale Tree doesn't use corpses, or at least didn't prior to Heart of Thorns:

Taimi discovers in Season 3 that Mordremoth didn't have the inherent ability to corrupt corpses; rather, it gained that ability upon the death of Zhaitan, when Zhaitan's magic was released into the world. Since the Pale Tree had been creating sylvari for 25 years prior to the death of Zhaitan, it follows that she can't have been able to utilise corpses.

--Idris (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Rather than "from corpses", it's been confirmed pre-release that the Pale Tree intentionally created sylvari in human's image. It's speculated in-universe that she used the corpses she was planted upon, but could also have just used Ronan and the others at gww:Ventari's sanctuary.

Also about those "spoilers" - Taimi's claims are rather unfounded, and ultimately false, given that "corrupting corpses" is not an aspect limited to Zhaitan (as proven in Edge of Destiny when we see a corpse corrupted by Jormag) and the Blighting Trees, in fact, do not corrupt corpses but use corpses and living beings as a "template". In other words, they do nothing more than what the Pale Tree did, or what destroyers do, but with far more accurate precision (and they can probably do that because they do not care about the well being of the host). EDIT: And rather than saying the Blighting Trees are corrupted Pale Trees, it's more accurate to say the Pale Tree is a purified Blighting Tree, just as Glint was a purified dragon champion, otherwise sylvari couldn't be dragon minions. Konig (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The lore master has spoken! --Idris (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Note about Taimi's theory

I think this should be tagged as a lore discrepancy, rather than have the Wiki make a judgment on the accuracy of her theory. Taimi is our Mr. Exposition, an NPC whose purpose is to explain an increasingly labyrinthine plot that some players have difficulty following, so it wouldn't make sense for ANet use her to intentionally lead players down the wrong path. While some elements of plot-critical in-universe theories have been wrong in the past, it doesn't feel like this is the case here - or at least, it doesn't feel certain enough that we can make a judgment on it rather than noting the apparent discrepancy and moving on. Especially when the contradictions to Taimi's theory is a pre-release interview (sylvari lore has changed significantly since then, and there are other unexplained factors such as Malyck's human form), and one instance of Jormag corrupting a corpse in one of the novels. I think it's more likely that the rules for how Elder Dragon corruption works weren't as set in stone when those things happened (if they're even properly set now), or that the writer for Taimi's dialogue wasn't aware of these two relatively obscure sources. –Santax (talk · contribs) 12:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The game is rife full of unreliable narrator, and Taimi is no exception. We have absolute proof that Taimi's support for her conclusion is, in fact, wrongly concluded (draconic use of corpses != death magic, as proven by Edge of Destiny). The sentence makes no claim on whether Taimi's conclusion ("Mordremoth ate Zhaitan's magic") is correct or not - after all, folks can come to the right conclusion with the wrong evidence - so the wiki is merely denoting the evidence wrong and the conclusion unknown. And this is how unreliable narrators are figured out, by comparing one's claim to others and seeing which is stronger - visually witnessing something is stronger than someone's theoretical conclusion.

Despite your claim, sylvari lore has not changed significantly - they were always going with the idea of sylvari are dragon minions, and Malyck's "human form" was an uncertainty from day one.

I do not think this is a lore discrepancy, but an attempt to put some doubt into Taimi's otherwise too-often right statements (as poor as it might be). Konig (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As much as Taimi has proven herself to be fallible -- way to create a world-destroying machine in your attempt to kill two dragons at once, genius -- I also feel that recent in-game content is likely to hold more canonistic weight than a one-liner from seven years ago. I'm not saying we can reject it wholesale, but treating every little detail from every possible source as equal may not be wise. Errors happen; minds change. I can certainly think of examples of pre-game interview lore that turned out to be nonsense. I rather like Santax's idea of using the lore discrepancy tag -- I'd forgotten we even have one, we use it so rarely. --Idris (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Using that logic, then Priest of Abaddon is right, and Abaddon wasn't trying to destroy the world during GW: Nightfall.

In both cases, we have our first person experience of the matter (which, yes, is older) versus someone's (an NPC's) second hand telling of the matter. Which holds more weight? The newer line that comes from in-universe conjecture, or the older line that comes from what we visually see happen. It may be a one-liner (technically two), but you're not talking the same kind of narrators.

To put it another way, when we have two conflicting sources of lore it takes the form of one of the following:

1. Two second-hand narrators (characters, books, etc. - anything that may potentially lie intentionally or not) tell us two conflicting things.
2. Two first-hand narrators (e.g., what we see in-game happening with our own eyes, description text in a book, or developer interviews) tell us two conflicting things.
3. One second-hand narrator and one absolute narrator tell us two conflicting things.

I would not list 1 and 3 as lore discrepancies, but rather intended use of unreliable narrators. 2 is 100% a lore discrepancy or outright retcon. Only when a narrator is intended to be telling the truth is #3 (or if both are for #1) a lore discrepancy - though I would merit the use of the tag in case of #1 where we do not know which narrator is accurate and which is unreliable. Our situation here is #3 - we have a first-hand knowledge (Jormag corrupted a corpse) with second-hand knowledge (Taimi believes Zhaitan's magic is needed for Elder Dragons to corrupt corpses).

If we tag every case of unreliable narrators, we'd be tagging over half the wiki lore articles. Konig (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all, Konig. I'm happy to accept unreliable narrators as canon, and I have no qualms with us suggesting that Taimi may be mistaken based on the evidence. What I am saying is to exercise caution when drawing your conclusions. It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're clinging to one interpretation among several, and the fact it's been contested by three different people now demonstrates that it's not the only valid interpretation. I'm getting a little sick of having to remind you of this. --Idris (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think this requires more discussion and perhaps a word from the developers. I’m curious to think howMordremoth creates minions in the first place and go from there. It seems he uses Blighting trees to mass produce through a cloning like process, however he can still build minions like the Mordrem Vinetooth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.92.148.78 (talk).

Hi, thanks for joining the discussion. Don't forget to sign your comments! Use four tildes: ~~~~. As nice as it would be to get the developers to settle this once and for all, we can't expect them to hand-hold us through every little quibble; when we're unsure of something, we should be striving to present what we know in as clear a manner as possible, to allow our readers to come to their own conclusions. :) --Idris (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Tagging this as a lore discrepancy actually brings this to the attention of the developers, and they have been known to address them in the past.

Konig, I don't think you're realising that you're making an assumption here, and that assumption is that this is "intended use of unreliable narrators". How can you know ANet's intentions? Is it not possible that while writing Taimi's dialogue ANet simply didn't take into account a single pre-release interview, or a single line from a book written three years ago by a non-GW writer?

To me, ANet's intentions seem rather different. The whole point of the Rising Flames and A Crack in the Ice releases was to demonstrate how Zhaitan and Mordremoth's magic was absorbed by the remaining dragons after their deaths - that part of Taimi's theory is well-supported. This minor technical issue about about Zhaitan not giving Mordremoth the specific ability to clone corpses seems unlikely to form the basis of a crucial plot point, so why intentionally mislead players over it? –Santax (talk · contribs) 07:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Santax and the others, Zhaitan uses corpses for minion manufacturing, etc. After his death Mordremoth is using living beings and corpses to create minions. It seems from the story perspective this ability to use corpses in minion production came from Zhaitan. Even if you look at the last story cutscene of Path of Fire, you see Kralkatorrik reanimating a dead devourer. Which shows that he has the ability to use corpses in minion productive. Each dragon seems to up the ante. Perhaps a note in the note section rather than in the spoiler section of the plot.50.92.148.78 19:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just found this. Kralkatorrik's branding of a dead devourer is an intentional hint that he has acquired some of Zhaitan's magic. –Santax (talk · contribs) 20:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Notice the green energy as well that appears. I think it’s pretty obvious that Zhaitan’s magical influence is clearly playing a part. My suggestion is to rewrite the spoiler section removing the theory and placing it in a note section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.52.88.181 (talk).

To use Santax's wording: I don't think you're realizing that you're making an assumption here, and that assumption is that this is "from the story perspective this ability to use corpses in minion production came from Zhaitan."

The statement currently states that Taimi theorizes that Zhaitan's magic is required for an Elder Dragon to corrupt a corpse, but we see that it is not required. Kralkatorrik corrupting a corpse with green smoke coming out of it being used to artistically show that Kralkatorrik has Zhaitan's magic does not counteract this - arguing such would, in fact, be the assumption made. The article does not state that Mordremoth did not consume Zhaitan's magic, nor that Mordremoth did. Nor does it say that Mordremoth would not be able to clone corpses without Zhaitan's magic, nor that it could. It merely states what we have seen: Taimi makes Claim A. We visually see Situation B. We visually see Situation C.

There is no real assumption there, just presenting the facts that we have. Whether you want to consider this a lore discrepancy or not is another matter, but the wording we see now is much like the wording a lore discrepancy note should have; which is, to use a popular idiom: "Just the facts, ma'am."

If one did want to go into what an Elder Dragon can or cannot corrupt without another's magic: While Primordus is almost exclusively seen corrupting rock, we know he can corrupt the living. Though Zhaitan is seen almost exclusively corrupting corpses, we know he can corrupt the living, and plants as well. Though we're told that Jormag primarily takes willing converts, we know that this is not universal, and he can corrupt corpses just as well as the living. But beyond the visuals we see, taking it any further would be the assumption. Konig (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole thing is getting rather confusing. My thoughts are that Taimi had a theory in Rising Flames and then proved the theory true in a Crack in the Ice. Mordremoth used corpses in the creation of his army. Are we going down the line of thinking that Mordremoth did not acquire the ability to corrupt corpses or in this case use them in Blighting pods. Does that mean that all dragons have the ability to corrupt corpses? Why bother showing such a thing in a cinematic if it’s just a standard feature of an Elder Dragon? Also what about the comment from Anet Chelsey that Santex located. If this was a standard feature why did Chelsey advise of his new found magic?209.52.88.181 22:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Taimi's theory about Mordremoth was never proven true. A Crack in the Ice only showed that both Jormag ate both Mordremoth and Zhaitan's magic (just as Primordus did as shown in Rising Flames), but didn't show about Mordremoth. If anything, A Crack in the Ice put doubts to Taimi's theory, given the Champion Unstable Abomination showing that Zhaitan's and Mordremoth's magic do not mix well (as in explosively volatile when mixed), which would explain why there doesn't seem to be any destroyer that utilizes both.

We know that Mordremoth was able to utilize - and yes, corrupt - corpses. Though the Blighting Trees do not corrupt corpses, Mordrem Troll and Mordrem Wolf are both confirmed cases of corrupted corpses. But as far as we know the case of troll and wolf is the same as Corrupted Tree for Zhaitan - an uncommon, but not unusual, occurance.

What we do not know is if a) Mordremoth ate Zhaitan's magic, or b) Mordremoth required Zhaitan's magic to corrupt corpses.

"Does that mean that all dragons have the ability to corrupt corpses?" This seems to be the case, yes. At the very least, it was never restricted to just Zhaitan. And not just for corpses either but land, water, air, living, dead, plant; all seem equally corruptible by every Elder Dragon, as we have seen Elder Dragons corrupting at least 3 of those six things. As to why show it? Because the black-and-green mist isn't something all Elder Dragons have. Furthermore, that cinematic was showing Kralkatorrik with color variations for all four other dragons: the sky turns red (Primordus), we see white-blue crystals (Jormag), and we see lime crystals (Mordremoth), then we see the dark green mist (Zhaitan). In that cinematic, it seems less about the deed, and more about the colors shown. Konig (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems like if we start doubting things that Taimi says which appear to be large plot points that we are going down the rabbit trail of not being able to trust anything the characters explain to us in the game. Perhaps a developer response is required as it makes Zhaitan a lame Elder Dragon if he was not the exclusive dragon that corrupted the dead. It really throws in the question of why bothering creating an Undead Elder Dragon in the first place. Might as well been a marshmallow Dragon if he had the same abilities, 209.52.88.181 23:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So ANET Chelsey advised this during the reddit ama: “We also have two hints in the epilogue cinematic regarding Kralk NEWFOUND Magic: 1–In the color of his crystals and 2– bringing a dead devourer back to life to brand it.” Seems like corpse creation is a power exclusive to Zhaitan’s magic. This is what Taimi says:” Taimi: The ones who came from the blighting pods! Mordremoth had its minions, the sylvari, right? But it was able to create more, new ones from the dead! That power came from Zhaitan!” Not really seeing the issue. 209.52.88.181 00:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This page is looking like a mess with this lore discrepancy. I don’t understand why we can’t mention the corpse thing that Taimi advised of. According to the quote I posted, Kralkatorrik gained the power to use corpses in minion making process, the cutscene shows and Anet advised that this is new magic to Kralkatorrik not a natural ability of the Crystal Dragon. I read the quote from the book, was it previously mentioned that the character in that book had been killed or are we going off of a face smashed in thing. I unfortunately seen people with their face smashed in and not be deceased. 50.92.148.78 23:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We are mentioning it. But you're all taking one side of the argument and ignoring the other. Whether you want to call it a discrepancy or not, there is a contradiction between Taimi's words and what we visually see. You're looking at just one possibility - that Taimi is right and the other stuff is wrong - I tried wording it to present both possibilities, but you wouldn't have it. So now we got this wonky lore discrepancy note as Idris and Santax wanted.
The FACT is that we have evidence pointing to two separate conclusions. The wiki avoids all speculation so we must not pick sides with what's presented. Konig (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know what we have to do now, don’t you... Link arms, travel down the yellow brick road and ask the Wizard of Oz for the answers. Putting this issue to rest, permanently. What about the comments made by Anet Chelsey, no worth there?209.52.88.172 01:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see how shovelling the contradiction to a lore discrepancy tag means we're making a claim about Taimi being right. The goal is to point out that she's contradicted elsewhere and letting the reader come to their own conclusion as to what this means. The previous presentation, in my opinion, came across as more biased, as it implied that Taimi was definitely mistaken.

...Correct me if I'm wrong, Konig, but are you interpreting the term "lore discrepancy" to mean "lore error"? Personally, I see it more as "lore anomaly" -- maybe it's a error, maybe it's intentional; we're not making any assumptions. I do think there's a risk that users may interpret the tag as implying there's an error, though, so that's something we can discuss if it's bothering you. --Idris (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, that why I thought having the spoiler information addressing what Taimi told the PC documented and having the discrepancy as a note, because it is odd and with Mordremoth being dead it’s uncertain if we will really ever get a proper answer in game. It seems odd for the developers to put in such a red herring and then advise the community that Mordremoth didn’t actually absorb the minion corpse making process power. 209.52.88.172 02:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@IP 209: Chelsey's line states that the dead devourer (and by extention, the green smoke) was put in to show that Kralkatorrik ate Zhaitan's magic. This does not mean that any Elder Dragon seeking to corrupt corpses must therefore have Zhaitan's magic. That's the leap Taimi makes, but it is lacking because that same line of argument goes to claim that Primordus can only corrupt rock, or Zhaitan can only corrupt corpses but we know both claims are wrong. Besides this, "what Elder Dragons domain represent" has thus far been show in the appearance of minions - e.g., what their corruption *results in* - and not what they corrupt. We see this in Ring of Fire destroyers, the Unstable Abomination icebrood, and even the final cinematic with Kralkatorrik (color of crystals), but we never saw this in Mordremoth.

Suffice it to say, the point is that we don't know the case, which is what the line (after adding references) had always been saying. Taimi says A therefore C, we see B therefore A doesn't lead to C, so we don't know if C is true or not.

@Idris: I think you missed an edit. The lore discrepancy tag isn't making a claim about Taimi being right. The folks in this discussion have been, as was that edit that kept Taimi's claim in the main body while putting the rest in notes. Or this edit on Mordremoth that fully removed what Taimi didn't say. Konig (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for the others, but my stance has always been "we can't be sure whether Taimi's right or not, and we need to reflect that uncertainty in how we word the article". --Idris (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading the text of the lore discrepancy (Konig, do you think you could have added it without whingeing in the edit summary, btw?), I'm not actually sure there's a discrepancy at all. Nothing in the quote from Edge of Destiny says that Jormag had corrupted a corpse. I don't see how either of the other quotes contradict what Taimi said, either. –Santax (talk · contribs) 13:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There’s got to be a way that we can make this nice and have everyone happy. There’s got to be some sort of compromise until either a dev advises other wise or we get further evidence in game. 209.52.88.108 02:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest a rewrite. 154.5.27.33 13:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading the quotes again, where is the evidence again that other Elder Dragons corrupt corpses? 209.52.88.223 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)