Talk:Grawl

...wut? Cress Arvein 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the GW2 Races video, I'm pretty sure on of the things you see them fighting are grawl, the baboon-ish creatures with skulls over their heads.User:Reez

Those looked to me to be tribal like masks, and based on Nick's dialogue this week something tells me that the Grawl become more obviously religious in the 250 years. -- Konig/talk 03:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So why would a charr (athiest) character befriend the very religious grawl? Ramei Arashi 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Charr aren't atheists. Atheism is the belief that there is no such thing as a god; the Charr are well aware of the existence of the gods, they just choose not to worship them. --98.19.154.170 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Ramei: The charr befriend the humans, norn, and sylvari - so why not grawl? @IP: Technically, the charr are aware of the existence of the beings called gods, but don't view them as gods - but rather as rivals to be defeated and killed. So they are Atheists - they acknowledge the existence of the beings, but refuse the existence of gods, if you get what I mean. -- Konig/talk 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Konig: really? I thought they acknowledged them as gods, but viewed them as capable of being overcome or even eliminated (as previous gods were). --Amannelle 23:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"There are no gods!" - all I have to say. But it was said that the charr do not view gods as such or as beings to follow, but as beings that should be fought, and if possible, kill. -- Konig/talk 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For those of you having trouble understanding it, the charr recognize that these 'gods' are beings of great strength, but they do not pray to them, nor do they believe that they are immortal. They believe they can be beaten, they believe in their own strength.--Corsair@Yarrr 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Straying from the point of my question. Why would the not religious charr befriend the highly religious grawl? Want to cure them of their religion? Ramei Arashi 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By befriend do you mean the racial sympathy question in the character biography? Befriending and sympathy are slightly diffrent subjects. 72.45.5.194 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My point being that just becuase you have sympathy for something dosnt mean it has sympathy for you, i doubt youll be able to befriend the grawl in game, at least not all of them. 72.45.5.194 18:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramei, you didn't listen to my answer: "The charr befriend the humans, norn, and sylvari - so why not grawl?" Why are the grawl so uniquely strange to you? And do note that not all charr have sympathy towards them if you mean the racial sympathy question - and if you're referring to the attempts at an alliance with the grawl in GW1 do note that those were the gw1:Shaman caste ruled charr. -- Konig/talk 19:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Concept art

It does not affect ANYTHING on the page and is nice to look at. The art is associated with the page and merely because we have a screen shot does not mean other related things cannot be posted on the page too. Also Naut, try and read wiki guidelines before you try and start a revert war with me.--Emmisary 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, no official guidelines have been accepted. But white space = Bad IMO. --Naut 20:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Go Go Gadget Consensus - Infinite - talk 20:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I do like the concept art and would love to have it on the page, but only if it can be fit in without making the page look ugly. --RaGingIMP 20:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No policies have been accepted but guidelines are a dime a dozen. Here is one for you.--Emmisary 20:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to ask you all to discuss first and then eventually revert in future, not the other way around. -- Cyan 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of the concept art. We have multiple pictures in the articles of a number of other species. Arshay Duskbrow 21:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring too the playable races, this is because there is a lot of information. Hylek and Skritt only have 1 image, and it fits well. Having two just makes it look bulky. --Naut 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to expand it so that there would be less white space to add both images, but we know still so very little that is relevant to GW2. For now, I say have one image, once we know more add the concept art. -- Konig/talk 22:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

More info

Can someone write more information from official blog?--81.108.131.4 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion

In GW2 during a stress test, I encountered an event where there was a group of Grawl who seemed to be worshiping the statue of Balthazar where Warmaster Grast was in Pre-Searing Ascalon in GW1. I read the wiki article for Grawl on the GW1 wiki, and it said that they seem to group around statues of Gods, but it didn't say anything about them worshiping them, nor do I remember them doing such in GW1, though I remember them grouping around statues. This could be good stuff to put down in this wiki once we've more information. Oh, also, they called Balthazar Badazar. ℬrendan ℳcℭoy talk 05:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read through this article. "Grawl have a deeply religious, animistic culture and tend to worship natural objects or very powerful and old beings." Or better the blog post on them.

Grawl are seen worshiping things from the statues of the gods, to a Searing crystal, to fleshreavers, to ice elementals, to an ice sculpture of a norn. They're not very bright in that. All well known. The GWW is somewhat out of date. Konig/talk 05:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To follow up on ℬrendan ℳcℭoy's comment, see the repeating quest, Defeat the enraged grawl rampaging through Martyr's Woods. It would seem that the object of their worship bestows a blessing. Also, do we want to include images of their devotion, such as, [[Demonic effigy]] and [[Grawl wall painting]], with which we can occasionally interact? Jpg images uploaded as linked, also [[Grawl wall painting with Demonic Effigy]]. Adeira Tasharo 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hostility to other species?

From following the Champion Badazar's Champion it seems that the grawl will not attack the nearby Forest Spiders in Martyr's Woods, but are hostile to the harpies in Agnos Gorge. I don't think that they were hostile to the rare Ascalonian ghost that walked through by Balthazar's statue. Adeira Tasharo 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Stating that the picture that's been at the top of the page for a while now is better is arguable, even more so since it shows a bunch of grawl in the same shot and the framing for most is rather poor (one arm sticking from outside the shot and kicked up dirt doesn't look very good to me.) I feel a picture showcasing a single grawl (it doesn't really matter that it's also used for NPC pages) like the one I added does a much better job at giving a general face to what the race looks like. Skrittman (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, concept art or early screen capture usually gives a better overall/general idea instead and aesthetically looks better than a stock image used for NPC pages. Not to mention the stock image narrows it down to just one specific type of NPC instead of being more general, which I don't think is a good idea for overview pages: that's more than likely why they're used on all the other pages. - Do_odleplex 18:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I just disagree with using concept art for visual representation at the top of any page unless it either works well visually (like the images I added on the various churches of the human gods since they're on a white background so it meshes well with the white background of the site) or there's no other better representation available at the time, be it for visual or spoilers reason. (Such as the druids group or the dragons page respectively.) For me, while I think most of them look ok from an artistic standpoint, most if not all of the concept art for early GW2 depict badly what the races look like actually once you're in-game and to me, that's the most important part of these pages. As for early screenshots, I think they're a bit too old looking and so the argument goes back to what I said in the previous sentence. Also this one in particular like I said above just looks really poor to me. It could go well in a gallery section but not much more. Skrittman (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want accurate representation of what is currently in game, you could categorize all of the NPC pictures themselves to be by race and then have a link to said category somewhere(maybe under Types?) so people can go and view all of those pictures. Do that and a bot could run through and add in the links which would be simple instead of you doing something silly like going through all of the race pages nuking all the concept art pictures you don't like heh. That way concept art stays where it was intended and people know what's what. =) - Do_odleplex 19:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like the concept art, you'd know that if you read my previous comment, I just think they offer a poor representation of what the actual individuals of the race looks like in-game. And I'm not removing them completely either, I'm putting them in a gallery section at the bottom of the page like a lot of them already had, so they're not gone forever. Just by taking a look at the GW1 wiki, most of the articles I saw from a quick look through the creature type category already has that setup in place and it looks a lot more official to me. And no, I don't think adding every single one example of the different variants of grawl to the page would add anything substantial. All I'm saying is that to me, and the GW1 wiki apparently, screenshots or visuals from the actual game are much better representations of what the actual NPCs for what these pages are supposed to be about are supposed to look like in-game. Skrittman (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the GW1 wiki tho, and the two wikis don't function or need to function exactly the same way. And in this page you didn't add it to a gallery, you just flat out removed it, essentially making it an orphan image, so because of that I'd like to make sure you did only did this image swapping to this page right? I'd rather get some other people's opinions before you do this on any other pages/orphan images. - Do_odlepl ex 20:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that both wikis should work the same way on every single thing. I just brought up an example of something that seemed to be working well and that looked to me better and more official on a wiki that is extremely related to this one. And sure, I removed this one without adding it to a gallery and that is something that I should've done in retrospect when I first made the change but that's not really the main point of what this discussion is about. Skrittman (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)