From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Anyone else think the name is a shortened referance to biblical Seraphim or 'fiery one'?.. And if I'm not mistaken in the trailer there is a large manor-like building that has an angel statue in front of it, perhaps their offices/headquarters?Celle

Too early to tell, imo. -- Konig/talk 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
True. I just thought it was an interesting connection even if it's a loose one. Celle
Turns out it is based after the angels of the same/similar name. -- Konig/talk 02:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Tag[edit]

To whomever is arguing the change from Seraph Guard to Seraph guard, please take a moment to go to this link Secret Service. Call me out if this is too far of a stretch but imo it fits the argument. Names of agencies generally capitalize most of the nouns. Siris/talk 05:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just read your edit notes Koing, while they may only be referred to in The Seraph or Seraph guard, My vote would be to leave it grammatically/commonly correct. There was an article published about gw2 where a dev said something along the lines of correcting the writing style/grammar used in the game. I would assume they intend upon keeping proper names/titles to common standards as well. Siris/talk 05:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I would indeed say that link is a bit of a stretch. You see, this isn't grammatically correct if they are referred to "the Seraph" - there would be no guard in the name. The article you're talking about is the House of Style by Bobby Stein in which organizations are capitalized. However, if they are known as "the Seraph" (and not "The Seraph") then it is not "Seraph Guard" - guard could also be an added term, an adjective. Thus meaning it should be "Seraph guard." How it is written by ANet is how we should write it, and thus far, I've seen "the Seraph" and "Seraph guard" not "The Seraph" or "Seraph Guard." -- Konig/talk 05:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It would appear in the book it is only called Seraph, like in GW1. Guard is a descriptive term. -- Konig/talk 02:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it says only "seraph" so who ever put Seraph Guard in obviously needs to look harder the the black and white. --Drewlark 99 (1337) User Drewlark99 Shield Stance.jpg 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FBI, CIA, Secret Sevice[edit]

It's just me or the seraph, ministry guard, and shining blade prety much resembles USA FBI, CIA and Secret Service? Lokheit 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Na, the Shining Blade play both Secret Service and CIA. The Seraph are more of a police military. Ministry Guard is probably closest to FBI, but with a more limited jurisdiction.--Corsair@Yarrr 20:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

armor FTW[edit]

and here's a femle seraph File:Female Seraph Guard.png --User The Holy Dragons sig.pngThe Holy Dragons 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Join able?[edit]

I do hope we can join Seraph or the SHining Blade if we make a Human, i'm really loving the depth they have and I would just adore being able to join them the same way you can join Orders Zachariah Zuan. 22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the first mission for humans is you aiding the Seraph as a new recruit - similar to how Nightfall is. I may be wrong in this though. -- Konig/talk 04:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't it that you were just in the area and decided to help? -User Eive Windgrace Harbinger of the Deceiver.png 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
you're always able to join The Seraph! --you like that don't you..The Holy Dragons 06:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Should it be noted that they buy slaves? Or am I misreading something on that page?--Mark, User talk:Markisbeest het Beest 13:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more a part of some event or storyline chain, rather than official practice of the organization. Need more info imo. Mediggo 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
From what I understood, that was a corrupt portion of the organization, as I recall reading that you were to help Logan investigate the matter. Or it could be that buying the slaves is a ploy and they purchase them to free them. Konig/talk 21:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fort Vandal[edit]

Another user and I have a disagreement over whether Fort Vandal is now a Seraph port or not. I believe it is as it the fort's walls are still now manned with a Seraph on the walls guarding the fortification from attack. Furthermore, It is my view that the fort will continue to be staffed and claimed as a Seraph Fort as it protects the only over land supply line to Camp Resolve. The fort is clearly frozen in the early days of its new owners, I do not see the Seraph abandoning it anytime soon given the bandit activity in the region as shown in the zone. DJ Boss 13:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Said other user here. Ultimately, what makes the fort the Seraph's base or not is more of how it is utilized. And currently, the only thing we can say without speculation is that the only thing that what we see the Seraph doing at Fort Vandal is investigating the bandit's activities there, not defending the structure or a supply route - the only things they're defending are themselves while they conduct said investigation. We have no real way of knowing what - if anything - they'd do with the fort.
As for your two points of speculation: "It is my view that the fort will continue to be staffed and claimed as a Seraph Fort as it protects the only over land supply line to Camp Resolve." Technically, it would be the Pact, not the Seraph, using it as a supply route (which by your argument would make it more of a Pact base, but we know this not to be the case as only one Pact soldier is present). However, to use the argument of ignoring frozen in time, Camp Resolve has fewer needs as Mordremoth is dead (leaving the only purpose for Camp Resolve being as a base for eliminating remaining mordrem or for trade to the hylek/Exalted, which Fort Vandal can do alone).
"The fort is clearly frozen in the early days of its new owners, I do not see the Seraph abandoning it anytime soon given the bandit activity in the region as shown in the zone." This argument is contradicting because the bandit threat has been neutralized in the story (Bandits are funded by / secretly are the White Mantle and they're either with Lazarus (ergo not threatening Kryta) or fallen with Cauduceus' failed attack on DR). Thus, ignoring the "frozen in time" part like you say for it still being staffed, you would have to ignore the bandit presence, which ultimately removes all purpose of the Seraph being in the area.
So again, all we have to go on is that the Seraph are not seen using it as a base, but are investigating the bandit's abandoned base. And that's what we document - facts, not speculations on what would be if the game wasn't frozen in time. Konig (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Except, Seraph are also at Fort Resolve. While you are right to point out speculation on my part, that does not invalidate the large Seraph force currently in possession of the fort and actively guarding and securing it. As you state, we can not spectate into the future on this matter and must go with the facts as they are.
While the outpost maybe abandon eventually, or given over to the Pact, we cannot know this and the fort is currently under the control of a large Seraph occupation with no less then 8 NPC Seraph and prison cage. The large force, coupled with them taking a defensive position, shows the Seraph's intention to remain an indeterminate amount of time. The other Seraph bases in the area, Seraph Protectors and Seraph Observers are both little more then tents that can be packed up and moved within a days notice. If Fort Vandal cannot be considered a proper base then why do we consider the temporary camps differently?DJ Boss 15:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Well yes the Seraph are at Fort Resolve, as are Wolfborn, Legion members, Peacekeepers, and Valiants due to Camp Resolve being a joint effort of all the races in Tyria, united as one, ie the Pact, against a common foe. The thing here is that Fort Vandal was never set up by the Seraph to be a Seraph run base, nor is it a base of operations for the Seraph-they're just investigating what happened there along with assistance from the Peacekeepers and the Valiants who are nearby(ie Triforge Point). The rest of the listed bases on the page are(or were as Fort Evennia was captured, Fort Salma was destroyed mostly) both set up to be Serpah bases and function as bases of operations for the Seraph. That's the short version of why it doesn't go here. I wonder though, if might fit better as a former camp/base on the Bandit page. - Doodleplex 18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Fortifications do not make base - be it stick and cloth or brick and mortar, either can be a base and neither can be a base. What defines whether something is a certain group's base of operations is the purpose for occupation does. And speculation aside (as the wiki deals only in presenting fact, not player speculation (side note: in-universe theories would be denoted, since they actually exist in the game setting)), the only purpose for occupation the Seraph have shown to have in Fort Vandal is investigation. It is no more a Seraph base than Cauduceus's Manor is a Shining Blade base during the events of Caudecus's Manor (explorable).
Simply put: Fort Vandal is not a base of operations for the Seraph, it is a target of mission. Even with its evacuation. Konig (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Should it go on the bandit page as a former base though? It does seem to fit there. - Doodleplex 18:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)