Talk:Jotun

Giants?

The GW wiki says that they are ogres, not giants. Just wondering if someone from Anet called them giants in relation to GW2, or if it should be changed to ogres on knowledge from GW Thering 17:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A while back there was some major confusion involving giants and ogres. This page is likely an offspring of that. I changed it to ogre, and unless someone can provide proof to the contrary, I'm keeping it that way. Eive 18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As per my revert edit summary: The GW1's ogre creature type is, thus far, a mechanic-only situation. There is nothing that is called an "ogre" in lore for GW1. Also, the term giant means a "very large being" and not the creature type. Lastly, ogres are now their own species in lore and it is speculation to call jotun ogres when it comes to lore (as this page is meaning as we know nothing on their creature type). -- Konig/talk 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that seems resolved for now. Good work Konig :) Thering 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Eive 01:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The new lore blog entry on jotun refers to them as giants. Ramei Arashi 19:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it calls them ogres in the Behind the Scenes section: "We wanted to make the ogres an old race and follow that with the jotun, since the two species are interlinked." Konig/talk 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It calls them "the last remnants of an ancient society of giants", but it also separates them from ogres as seen above. This issue is not quite concluded, even with this rich blog post pushed live. - Infinite - talk 21:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It depends on what it refers to by "giants" - in GW1, the giants never appeared to be a single species - or perhaps a species with many sub-species, as the only giants that looked similar were the Crystal Desert ones with the Vabbian ones. Jotun and igres always looked relatively similar. More so than any two giants in GW1. So it could be that giant in GW (both 1 and 2) in a lore perspective is merely "very tall humanoid." Konig/talk 22:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jotun, Ogres, Giants and even yeti and ettin may have perfectly had common ancestry. It's not rare in GW, even when creatures look very different. Just look at how different behemoths are between Tyria and Elona. Another example are human and norn, they are related so closely that they can have descendants and there are many cases of norn-sized humans (what was first, the tall human or the half-norn? Maybe the first Norn were born from giants or ogres?). In GW1 mechanics, Jotun are 'Ogres' by type, but have Giant skills (Giant stomp, Immunity to Stun), and that's all about them, giants are all very similar, they move the same, have always giant stomp and stun immunity, and the most notable difference between them is the shape of their head and the position of their tusks (oh, well, the Giants in the desolation are another exception since they have Yeti rigs, while the other Elonian giant, Bull trainer ones, have the sand giant model and rig). It's perfectly feasible to have some ancient common ancestor that splits into all ogres and giants, so back in the past that it's not even in the last remnant of their lore, GW has many 'touches' of D&D and trolls, ogres and giants are related in D&D, falling under the same category. But GW1 is GW1, and GW2 is GW2. Without some kind of in-game mechanic proof, like a title for killing giants or ogres increasing when killing Jotun, or some weapon or effect that deals more damage specifically to giants or ogres, or a skill that works like "Scan" in final fantasy telling that the target is "Giant" or "Ogre", or an in-game bestiary including them with info about them, or the devs telling us themselves, they should just be 'Jotun'. MithTalk 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even with such a title increasing, that does not mean the Jotun lose their category. It would simply make Jotun a subcategory to whatever they classify as. - Infinite - talk 22:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mith: The behemoth example is very poor. Nothing indicates a shared lore ancestry - they share the same mechanical creature type, but so do Prophecies charr and Prophecies titans. Does that mean they hold similar ancestry in lore? Nope. Furthermore, it's been stated that norn and humans cannot have children - which is stated on Norn#Physiology. Which only proves you wrong. Giant Stomp is likewise a poor example. case in point.

So using mechanics is outright wrong. We have cases which prove such assumptions wrong. A title would not change a thing when discussing things on a lore standpoint, which this is doing.

This discussion is on the lore value of the jotun, not the mechanical (which btw, based on Slayer, the jotun are getting their own mechanical category - separate from both giant and ogre). So your entire argument is pretty much moot, since it's 100% based on mechanics. Konig/talk 01:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jotun Sword

Shouldn't Jotun sword be added to this article? Ariyen 20:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it unlikely all jotun use the sword. Rather, it should go onto the articles of the jotun which use the "jotun sword" but said articles do not exist. -- Konig/talk 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Could put something like some Jotun may use this sword or something?.... If not, think it can wait. Was just checking the Orphaned Pages and seeing what could be changed (taken out of there). Ariyen 22:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Magic

So based on the Anet blog article http://www.arena.net/blog/the-savage-pride-of-the-jotun do we expect the Jotun in GW2 to be non-spellcaster professions only "the jotun lost all knowledge and understanding of magic" and perhaps not even engineers "Their lore is scattered, and much of it lost; any religion, higher learning, or secrets of invention that they once mastered have been eradicated..."? (Usaf1a8xx 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC))

"Jotun organize themselves into large tribes, related by blood or union, led by the strongest. This strength may come from arms, or magic, or any other ability—but it is always shown through physicality and brute force. The jotun do not respect a leader that is not physically able to enforce his laws and rulings." This quote (from the same article) suggests that magic is still there, but is not considered a leadership's quality. - Infinite - talk 15:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

almost seems like double talk (Usaf1a8xx 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC))

This was debated on the Guru's thread for the blog. Basically my view (which is one of two) is this: in the past the jotun had a different kind of magic than what they use now. Note that they never said they lost magic, but knowledge and understanding of magic - likewise, most cases of the historical magic is referred to as "jotun magic," almost always having jotun before it as an adjective denoting a uniqueness to it (similar to how Spectral Agony is mursaat magic).

In effect, either the article contradicts itself (as GW1 jotun would be post-fall and thus post-losing the understanding of magic), or they never lost magic on a whole, just the magic they once had. Konig/talk 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Giganticus Lupicus

Saw a link for Giganticus Lupicus on the gww mainpage and after reading it I remembered the recent jotun article. I know jotun arnt extinct but still they seem somewhat similarily described. I dont know, just brain randomizing stuff. Justice 10:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jotun are not Giganticus Lupicus. If the bones found in GW1 which are suspected to be GL bones really are GL bones, then they make jotun look like ants. Furthermore [1] "Giants do exist. You see them in Nightfall and in Prophecies, and they exist in Guild Wars 2. [...] They’re not the same as the ‘Giganticus Lupicus’ or the ‘Great Giants’ [...]" The GL are deader than dead. Giants exist - jotun among them - but they are not GL. Konig/talk 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jotun Video

It's really a video for the mesmer skill veil, but it shows the jotun: [2] --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.76.220.66 (talk).

Mirror of the asura?

The Jotun were, per lore. Advanced magically, and to at least some extent, technologically.

The Asura were and are advanced magically and technologically.

The Jotun revere strength above all else.

The Asura revere intellect above all else.

The Jotun viewed themselves as superior to other races.

The Asura view themselves as superior to other races.

The Jotun empire failed.

The Asuran empire has not (yet) failed.

It would be wise for the Asura to heed the lesson left by the Jotun. —Torrenal 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Asura were and are advanced [...] technologically" Zat's the charr. @_@ Every race falls eventually. From Seer and mursaat to jotun and, yes, even humans. Konig/talk 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, when you are at the top, you only fall when you err. How exactly did the Jotun err? —Torrenal 01:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

They ruled everything they saw, and they loved challenge too much, so they fought amongst themselves. Horribly summarizing, but effectively they fell due to constant civil wars. The asura wouldn't do that, but charr and norn would. Konig/talk 07:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The error of the Asura would be that of tyranny - I think everyone can imagine a situation where the Asura pull some sort of continent-wide coup and install themselves as the rulers of Tyria, only to be eventually overthrown by rebellion. -- Armond Warblade 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the asura already had an empire that fell - it fell to Primordus. As to tyranny... you should play the Infinity Ball storyline. :P Konig/talk 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm... I'll keep that in mind for when I eventually make an asura. -- Armond Warblade 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)