Talk:Dwarf

Santax revert

If you read, not everything is taken from gww, and it was not a blind copy things were accordingly changed. And why do you think it is a "bad merge"? Coran Ironclaw 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The sections are all over the place, an extract from tMotW is used where a wikilink would suffice, some of the capitalisation is just downright strange, every proper noun is internally linked (King Jalis has 3 links on that page), irrelevant information (Stone Summit) is used where an interwiki link should be used, and the article links on numerous occasions to articles that not only don't exist yet, but should not and will not exist on the GWW (Jalis, Dagnar, Stone Summit etc.) --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why there shouldn't be a bit of lore about what dwarves once were on the article? caps, proper noun linked can be fixed. All the interwiki links can be fixed when we actually have those interwiki links, if that is what bother you, just remove the links but do not revert. Coran Ironclaw 19:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Dwarves are more relevant to GW, as opposed to GWW. A much shorter article that points to the more detailed article on GWW would be better. Why do we need GW information on GW2W, when we already have a perfectly good Guild Wars Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santax (talk • contribs).

This needs about 2 lines and a link. Something along the lines of "Dwarves once ruled in Shiverpeaks, fought destroyers, turned to stone/killed, now rare, nomadic creatures." Obviously not that simplified, but Jalis, Thunderhead Keep, etc. need to go. Lord Belar 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A few still exist, and I'll bet money we encounter a few. There'll be a fair share of GW2 info on them, and the page is already a good size as is. Calor (t) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know they're more relevant to GW1 than GW2? I'd bet money that there's something behind their "deathless ubermode" that'll help us out at some point. -- Armond Warblade 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't know yet, but we can always add more after release. Lord Belar 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Demise?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand where all the dwarves went. Sure, I get that most of them were turned to stone to fight the Destroyers (with or without George Thorogood), but what of the others, like Ogden Stonehealer, who didn't undertake the transformation? What about the Stone Summit? --RoyHarmon 18:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We killed all the stone summit but yeah i dont get it how they just vanished like that too, there were alot that didnt turn too stone but somehow just vanished.. yeh that makes sense.

To explain the case of Ogden turning into stone: Ogden Stonehealer: "Not I. Those who undergo the rite are changed in both body AND mind. I will stay with you, for the moment." - from the Great Dwarf cinematic. Only other dwarves that didn't change are Alkar and Kilroy - that we know of. Eventually, I'm sure all would go under the "rite." As for why they "vanished" is because - for those that survived the fight with the Great Destroyer, the remaining went into the depths and became isolationists. As stated in the Movement of the World article. I'd assume that once Primordus wakes up, they go and attack his minions.

I would not be surprised if we see Dwarves in GW2 in the Depths fighting against Primordus' forces. -- Konig Des Todes 02:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

these dwarfs are supposed to be immortal ("They gave up their flesh and their mortality 250 years ago" ) suggesting they can not die yet later on in direct contradiction to that we see evidence of most of them dyeing ("Those few Dwarves who survived the battle against the Great Destroyer") clearly something is wrong perhaps they are not as immortal as we are lead to believe.58.96.85.7 00:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Immortal doesn't nessisarily mean that they cannot die, in some cases it just means they cannot die of old age. If you've been smashed etc and your made of stone, with the expection of re-animation. they surely your going to die :P. --BloodStain 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Although immortal means cannot die, many uses for it would be do not age. Though the correct term would be eternal youth, it is easier to say immortal. -- Konig/talk 03:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rite Back In It!

I can't wait to take my own little stone dwarf character and go through the quest chain that reverses my stone body, making me flesh again. After all, we're talking about magic, and magic does just about anything we want it to...RIGHT ANET!!!! I swear if you don't...Vidal 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

i'd be okay with meeting reformed Stone Summit, aiding humans Zachariah Zuan. 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

ANet said dwarves arnet playable --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.126.46 (talk).

No they didn'tVidal 16:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they did.-- Shew 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As quoted from the article "who knows what the future holds for them." i.e. They may be available later, and at this time, all we know for sure is that they aren't initially available. I assume he's talking about either GW2 or GW3. You be the judge.Vidal 04:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how bout that. There just happens to be a person in the game that appears to be able to create life from stone...we'll seeVidal 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I forgot about Caithe! xD I feel stupid now lol. I mean it IS quite "coincidental"-- the dwarves end up being turned to stone by an ancient magic, and everyone is sad that they can't be played due to their unusual characteristics. Then we are introduced to a new race that is completely new and one of them just HAPPENS to be able to turn stone to living organic material... hmm.... Lol I think I'm finally taking 2 and 2 and getting 4.. or at least I hope so. xDD --Amannelle 01:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"one of them just HAPPENS to be able to turn stone to living organic material" Who said it was stone that the creature was? I think it was more of a dead tree creature, or random animation chosen for the artwork. Anyways, I doubt that what you seem to be implying (that the dwarves will be able to return to flesh and blood via sylvari magic) will come to pass. It seems rather clear that the dwarves will be gone for good after the dragon threat, or even during the threat. -- Konig/talk 01:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It might, it might not-- who knows? :D But I do remember reading some article about her being able to turn stone into living beings. Heck, even this very wiki says it: "She appears to be able to create life from stone". :D So who knows? It might happen, it might not. I don't really mind either way, but if she can turn things from stone into organic beings, then that WOULD be a bit of a coincidence. ;) --Amannelle 01:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "stone" seems to me to be a guess based on observation. But it might not be such - it could be dead/petrified (not Echovald petrified) wood. -- Konig/talk 03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

Do we know they still call themselves the Deldrimor? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Jalis may have referred to them by that name after his transformation in dialogue somewhere, might warrant checking though. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

After the transformation, they are still called Deldrimor, however, if they are in GW2, is unknown. -- Konig/talk 19:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest splitting the article - not into two articles - but into sections? That is, a section just on the stone dwarves, and a section on the flesh dwarves? -- Konig/talk 22:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing this, but I would probably consider the stone Dwarves and the "regular" Dwarves to be two separate species. --Santax (talk · contribs) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the terminology of Guild Wars 2 era should be preferred on this wiki, and it seems that the Stone Dwarves have consistantly been referred to as Dwarves in GW2-related material. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with splitting this into two sections. With the obvious and considerable differences between "fleshy" and stone dwarves they shouldn't remain one section. Eive Windgrace 11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said there are "fleshy" dwarves left? We simply don't know enough about their current state to warrant any change beyond what this article currently is. We can only say their history and their known present (which is only known to be in isolation and stone). -- Konig/talk 16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible speculation in the general traits section

Does anyone have a source to back up any of the following claims?

• "their appearance on the day of the ritual is forever frozen in time"
• "Their already considerable strength in life has been greatly improved and only complete destruction of their bodies will kill them."
• "they can no longer have children"

-- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Stone Summit

First, the Slavers' Exile plotline takes place after the defeat of the Great Destroyer. Second, I don't think there has been any official answer regarding the fate of any surviving Stone Summit, we just know that the old, non-stone dwarves haven't been seen on the Tyrian continent in generations. We don't know if were killed, switched sides, slowly died out or just fled to another continent. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anet has said that, though nothing is set in stone (ahem), the dwarves' storyline didn't seem all that appealing for GW2. I only wish that if they aren't ever a playable race, Anet flat out says that they just decided not add them. This idea that the lore dictates anything in the game is just silly (in reference to all the people who say that there aren't any left, they were all turned to stone etc etc). Anet dictates the lore.Vidal 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe somewhere Anet has said that there are some Stone Summit left - who were corrupted by Jormag if I recall correctly. I think it was one of the onlineweten (or however it is spelled) interviews. However, I do believe that all the remnants of the Stone Summit are in the Far Shiverpeaks in EN's time - I don't recall where at the moment, but it was said that they lost the war and all fled in exile. Duncan is the last known leader (hence the name of the quest), and it doesn't seem like after Duncan they were anything more than exiles (thus no threat to anyone). -- Konig/talk 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ree said all the dwarves eventually took the rite, that there are non none stone dwarves on Tyria:http://www.talktyria.net/2011/08/11/sylvari-lore-interview-with-ree-soesbee-kristen-perry/ Ramei Arashi 00:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Deathless

so does this mean that when you are being allied by them they never die O.o--♥Icyyy♥ 04:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It just means they can't die of aging, because they don't age anymore. They're not even alive in a biological sense. Of course they can be destroyed, though. Arshay Duskbrow 04:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you smash stone, it will die. It's just that they don't age (naturally - if they are stuck in a sandstorm of caught in waves, they will likely wither - that would be their aging, and would take thousands of years; not to mention since they are sentient they could help prevent withering). -- Konig/talk 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh, now i get it Thanks guys!(:--♥Icyyy♥ 04:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Nuance

"their race is all but extinct", "The ritual, however, has most likely ended their existence as a viable race", "it seems that their race has reached its terminus". It seems that the author of the article felt the need to deviate from the language of The Movement of the World and stress that Dwarves' time is over. I propose that the article be re-worded to more closely represent what is actual lore, rather than "what seems to be their future". The way the Movement of the World leaves it is that there are few left, and those few are scattered. Pushing beyond that is player speculation and is mis-representativeVidal 04:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they're all made of stone doesn't push the case for reproduction any time soon. --Odal talk 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is pure speculation on the part of the players, because I don't think anyone from Anet has said anything about them not being able to reproduceVidal 04:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's implied. The Movement of the World mentions with great emphasis that they are no longer creatures of flesh and blood, and that their "flesh and hearts [are] encased in stone". If they even have the drive to multiply anymore (I doubt that's the "strange, driven passion that consumes these few survivors" (emphasis mine)), I don't think it's going to happen to a rock. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat incorrect, because whatever it is that we know of actual rocks does not apply here. You could say that because rocks can't speak or move, stone dwarves can't do these things either, but that would clearly be incorrect. The bottom line is that we're talking about magic here, and the idea that they are over as a race is based on their low numbers, numbers that we don't know anything about specifically, and their being unable to reproduce, something that is completely unfounded. That's why that specific language should be changed.Vidal 15:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to GW2?

IMO, most of this article is not relevant to GW2. We could easily replace it with one or two paragraphs and keep the link to GW1W if people want to know more about the dwarves before their transformation. Erasculio 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, most of the information @ this article is destined for the gww. --The Holy Dragons 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What those two said. - Infinite - talk 21:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that it should of been reverted that much. You now have no mention of the Stone Summit or the civil war, no mention of their creation legend, only what led them to be stone beings. It is relevant as Edge of Destiny shows that there are still flesh and blood dwarves as a village is attacked by destroyers and there are dwarven bones, and the history of GW1 is the history of GW2; it's just not as relevant here as on GW1Wiki, and imo we shouldn't force people to switch between wikis just to learn the whole general story. Specifics of what occurs before and during gw1 should go on the gw1wiki, but they should remain summarized here. Something that was removed. Not to mention that the gw1w article is greatly lacking in information - there is no "if people want to know more" on that wiki at the moment. -- Konig/talk 13:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

From bottom to top: I agree, the GW1W article is lacking in content. It's up to someone who cares about GW1W to complete that article, since everything that was removed from here is content that should be there. The EoD mention is IMO taken care of - we do mention that there are still bone and flesh dwarves around.

Regarding the Stone Summit, the civil war and etc - I doubt any of that matters anymore. If we learn there are still dwarves calling themselves Stone Summit in GW2, then I think it would be worth adding information about them here. If dwarves are only met as living statues who are obsessed with destroying Primordus and nothing else, I don't think all the backstory (the civil war, the Stone Summit) would matter here. Erasculio 14:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Few [dwarves] lived to return to the surface and tell the tale of their victory—and those who did ... found their bodies composed entirely of stone" (none of the Stone Summit were transformed by the Great Dwarf anyway). Basically, real dwarves do not exist anymore (any possible survivors were most likely scoured by dredge) and stone dwarves are a completely different race. The dwarven history is actually irrelevant to stone dwarves, except for how the dwarves became stone dwarves. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not all dwarves underwent the right of the Great Dwarf. Example: Ogden, he was in the same room as the dwarves that were turned to stone and wasn't changed. I doubt that every single last Deldrimor dwarf was in that room and was changed, except for Odgen. Also, we don't know if a dwarf could be turned to stone after the majority did. Another factor could be a Stone Summit dwarf, maybe more, abandoning the rest and continuing the line, like Ural Highstone. - 70.31.74.62 20:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Regarding the Stone Summit: It was reported by a fan (no immediate recording unfortunately so it isn't completely reliable) that the Stone Summit will make a return - mainly (if not completely) as minions of Jormag (as icebroods? Dunno). Likewise, their history is important. It should, however, not be in explicit detail imo. For the stone-flesh thing: Edge of Destiny is newer information and has unrotten wood and a depiction of dwarves fighting destroyers in the destroyed village. I somehow doubt that village is older than 250 years, and it matches the description in MotW of the dwarves becoming isolationists, rather than being outright extinct. And only those who underwent the ceremony had changed - I doubt the entire race had moved to the Far Shiverpeaks at that time. -- Konig/talk 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I would rather wait to see if the Stone Summit will really return before adding information about them here. And, again, the article does mention that not all dwarves are stone, so it does contemplate the fact that the race isn't extinct. Erasculio 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The second part was in response to the IP and Sparky. Not the current state of the article. I'll rework this article sometime this week, simultaneously performing the [[Deldrimor dwarf|long overdue merge]] as well. -- Konig/talk 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

From the information we've been given (The Movement of the World), dwarves do not exist in GW2. Unless there is a more recent source that says otherwise, we should assume that they do not exist. The isolationist (more accurately knight-errant, imo) attitude described is of the stone dwarves, contrary to fleshy dwarves. We know that not all dwarves were transformed by the Great Dwarf and that none of the transformed were Stone Summit. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly: Edge of Destiny (read my first comment); secondly: A person who attended PAX 09 - which is post Movement - reported comments of Stone Summit surviving; Thirdly: The Movement of the World is no where contradicted because 1) it doesn't state "all dwarves became stone and/or died" but rather "those who survived the battle were stone, and the race became isolationists, abandoning their old homes" and 2) The Movement is an in-universe documentation and, just like the gw1:History of Tyria has been proven wrong, so too can the Movement. -- Konig/talk 01:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

EoD and MotW are not contradicting because MotW is many years after EoD. MotW does say, quite bluntly, that the dwarves were all killed by the destroyers or transformed by the Great Dwarf. It is possible that there is a remote, undiscovered group of non-corrupted Stone Summit, but it wouldn't make sense to assume (speculate) that there is (a person who attended PAX isn't necessarily an official source). –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It can't be "many" years later since EoD takes place only 5 years prior to GW1, and there's no mention of the charr/human treaty thus implying that the Movement is based sometime between 1322 and 1324 AE (I say '21 cuz it says Kralk woke up "a few years ago"). But let's pull out the full quote from the Movement:

"The fight between the Dwarves and the Destroyers consumed the Dwarven race. Few lived to return to the surface and tell the tale of their victory—and those who did had been irrevocably altered. No longer made of flesh and bone, no blood pumped through their veins. Instead, they found their bodies composed entirely of stone surrounding nothing but cold, hard earth."

"No longer interested in maintaining their solidarity as a race, these last Dwarves scattered across Tyria, finding battles to fight in the deep caverns or making new homes in far-flung hills, ever-watching the borders where caverns emerge into the surface world. Those few individuals who can rightfully claim to have met a Dwarf in their lifetime are rare, and all speak of the strange, driven passion that consumes these few survivors." This states 2 things: 1) All survivors from the battle were not flesh and blood (we know this to be false); and 2) That the dwarves are no longer interested in solidarity as a race. This does not state that all flesh and blood dwarves died off, nor does it state that every dwarf became stone. It merely states that they are no longer a nation (aka "a solidarity as a race") and that they are scarce in the world. -- Konig/talk 09:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) On the contrary, that does say that the only survivors were stone dwarves (the ig writers of MotW may not have known nor cared about a few non-stone dwarves, being killed off by the destroyers later or dying of old age anyway). The second paragraph does not talk about dwarves, it talks about stone dwarves. Since it says "these last dwarves," (i.e. the only dwarves left), the "these" referring to the "few [who] lived to return to the surface" who had been "irrevocably altered," were the ones not concerned with their "solidarity as a race." If you do not remember, transformed dwarves were changed in body and mind. The few people who have met a dwarf all notice a "strange, driven passion that consumes [the dwarves]," to fight and contain the destroyers (i.e. their minds are altered by the Great Dwarf). Furthermore, if fleshy dwarves had just decided to wander off alone, they would all be dead, hostile (Stone Summit), or over 200 years old. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 16:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: The only survivors from the battle with the destroyers were stone dwarves (again, which is false, Ogden being flesh and blood a year later, at Gwen's wedding, disproves this comment); and a stone dwarf is still a dwarf. Your creating context when none is given. It's left ambiguous - never specifying whether the dwarves that are "no longer interested in maintaining their solidarity as a race" are stone or flesh. It merely says that the survivors are stone. And there's obviously the capability of new dwarves being born, you know, if there are villages of dwarves still. (Also, King Jalis is 127 in prophecies - or 133 in EN - and I don't recall him being called "old" though I may be wrong on that). And who did the stone dwarves return to? Go see the cinematic where Jalis turns the dwarves into stone, that cannot be the entire race, let alone the entire nation of deldrimor. -- Konig/talk 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take this sentence-by-sentence to make this easier for me and others to follow and to make sure I address everything.

"The only survivors from the battle with the destroyers were stone dwarves (again, which is false, Ogden being flesh and blood a year later, at Gwen's wedding, disproves this comment); and a stone dwarf is still a dwarf."

Right, from the battle that "consumed the dwarven race" (again, which is not false, the fight with the destroyers continuing many years after the events of GW:EN, past Gwen's wedding, validating this comment); and a stone dwarf is not a dwarf, you could call them roses and they would not be roses either.

"Your creating context when none is given."

Where?

"It's left ambiguous - never specifying whether the dwarves that are "no longer interested in maintaining their solidarity as a race" are stone or flesh."

This one completely ignores my previous comment. I'll just repost the relevant part. "Since it says 'these last dwarves,' ... the 'these' referring to the 'few [who] lived to return to the surface' who had been 'irrevocably altered,' were the ones not concerned with their 'solidarity as a race.'" There were other parts that make it make more sense, but those are more related to a later sentence.

"It merely says that the survivors are stone."

From the angle you're trying to get at, the dwarven survivors from the struggle that "consumed the dwarven race" would be the last of the entire dwarven race.

"And there's obviously the capability of new dwarves being born, you know, if there are villages of dwarves still."

That is until they are killed, children included. If you are referring to my "if fleshy dwarves had just decided to wander off alone, they would all be dead, hostile (Stone Summit), or over 200 years old" comment, this is supporting evidence for the dwarves not "interested in maintaining their solidarity as a race" being stone dwarves, the first clause of the sentence is important in understanding its point.

"(Also, King Jalis is 127 in prophecies - or 133 in EN - and I don't recall him being called "old" though I may be wrong on that)"

I don't know much about dwarven life-spans, but I got the impression that Jalis was one of, if not the oldest dwarves. Maybe it was the wrinkles or his leadership position, though it is entirely speculation.

"And who did the stone dwarves return to?"

To be honest, I don't know what you're asking. I guess since they wandered off alone, nobody?

"Go see the cinematic where Jalis turns the dwarves into stone, that cannot be the entire race, let alone the entire nation of deldrimor."

Hence the scarcity of dwarves in GW2. We know that the entire race was not transformed (Stone Summit) and that the entire nation of Deldrimor was not transformed (Ogden Stonehealer).

I know this makes it look really long, but half of it is just there so readers and I know what I'm responding to. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to respond to each point individually, but I realized I just need to comment on your last point. You just conceded your entire argument. Up until this point you have been arguing that "real dwarves do not exist anymore" and "dwarves do not exist in GW2". Now you say they DO exist, just scarce (no one argued against that), and that their entire race - not even the entire nation of Deldrimor - was transformed. You contradicted yourself in your own very post just now. -- Konig/talk 08:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think the article is a bit weird now. I think the introductory text became a bit redundant with the history section; I would suggest merging those two into the history section (rewritting it, not just moving them together) and writting a shorter introduction text with no mention of the dwarves' history, just pointing out what they are today. Erasculio 12:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's really the equivalent of quoting me arguing, "dwarves don't exist in GW2," and then saying that that somehow contradicts me saying, "non-perishable bananas exist in GW2, but they are scarce because not many dwarves were turned into non-perishable bananas." Two things share the name "dwarf," it doesn't mean they are interchangeable. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dwarves are dwarves, whether stone or flesh and blood. They are interchangable because it's the same exact thing. It's like saying juggernauts are not kurzicks when they clearly are. -- Konig/talk 04:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Being made of stone as opposed to being made of flesh automatically means they are no longer the "same exact thing." If I were to carve a statue of you, would I be able to refer to you and the statue interchangeably? No, for many reasons: the statue does not age like you, the statue does not think like you, the statue does not act like you, (the statue literally is not you), the statue does not look like you, the statue does not have flesh or blood like you, etc. Just like Konig (the statue) is not Konig (the person), (stone) dwarves are not (fleshy) dwarves. It's not like saying that juggernauts are not Kurzicks – if you mean affiliated with the Kurzick nation, then anything can be Kurzick – if you mean Kurzick people, then juggernauts are not Kurzick people (Kurzick people are humans, juggernauts are constructs), yet when a Kurzick person is changed to become a juggernaut, that person is still who he was. Not so for the transformation the dwarves undertook, Ogden chose not to undergo the transformation for this very reason (and because it would make Ogden's hero armor upgrades much less worthwhile). –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a statue of a dwarf and a dwarf of flesh turned into a dwarf of stone. The first is a duplication, a copy; the second is the same exact being - same consciousness (albeit different mentality), same body, same soul, just different "materials" that the body is made out of. -- Konig/talk 07:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's a big difference, but that's why I didn't say that they were the same. Dwarves do not have the same conscience or subconscience once they are transformed by the Great Dwarf. Dwarves having the same body after the transformation is debatable (the whole, "if you replace every part of a ship through repairs, is it still the same ship?" thing), but also doesn't really pertain to this section. In the GW series, the soul is just a blueish, transparent version of its owner (so, while different, it also doesn't really matter). –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 05:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To Me it's relevant, because these Dwarves(stone) are seen in some personal story cinematic's in higher end personal story missions not to mention there tyrian lore.--144.137.70.199 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Last Known Living Dwarf

Hi guys, I noticed that someone added the comment that Ogden was the "last known living dwarf"

This is incorrect. Ogden specifically states there are other survivors fighting in the depths. This is even on the wiki itself. I took the liberty of fixing this. Just so everyone is aware.--122.108.165.154 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Worth mentioning the information pertaining to The Great Dwarf, and the Dwarven Brotherhood who followed Glint? Zachariah Zuan. 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dredge

No mention of the Dredge? They enslaved an entire race and culture, you'd think that it would be mentioned at least once. --68.63.83.182 23:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Stone Summit article, which is linked here. - Felix Omni 23:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback 2016/09/25

Rhoban's full name is Rhoban Orestriker. --68.83.160.10 16:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)