Talk:Six Human Gods

Arachnia

"Lore also mentions two unnamed gods that Abaddon deposed, and Abaddon's predecessor, who, in a source of disputed canonicity, is referred to as a spider deity named Arachnia. Several demigods are also known, including Menzies, Balthazar's half-brother, and Abaddon's children who (supposedly - canonicity is unonfirmed) were murdered by the god of secrets after they attempted to dethrone him"

...Where did all that come from?

Although the history of the article does mention the Apostate quest, it sounds flimsy and "might be true, but let's put it in anyway," so I removed it. It should be reworded into the 100% facts by someone better informed than me. -- pling | ggggg 00:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Arachnia is confirmed somewhere in-game or in the .Dat, I believe. Calor 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Arachnia is confirmed in the .dat, as are Abaddon's dead children and The Apostate quest is pretty much about Abaddon's predecessor. --77.98.23.140 07:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The dat is hardly a reliable source for what is actually in the game - as I believe Emily, Gaile and/or Regina have said that the stuff in there shouldn't really be taken as canon because they didn't implement it directly in the gameplay or lore for a reason. I would say take out Arachnica and Abaddon's dead children: it looks like the only mention of them is in the dat and not in the game. -- pling | ggggg 12:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence the "canonicity unclear" disclaimer. It's just an interesting bit of trivia, it can't hurt to have it in there. --77.98.23.140 12:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A wiki usually goes for solid facts. If it serves as trivia, put it under a Trivia section where it's usually a "might be, might not be" sort of thing. Doesn't really belong on the article body itself. -- pling | ggggg 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Arachnia is confirmed in the .dat" Can somebody please tell me what .dat is? I've never heard about it before.

Referring to the gw.dat file that runs the game. Cress Arvein 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

you should just include a larger disclaimer.(unsigned

As the main person in the lore community who brought up Arachnia, I figured I should put up my opinion. Arachnia is point-blank stated about in the gw.dat file and is referenced to in the Gate and Domain of Fear descriptions *along with four Realm of Torment landmarks* - So while there is no actual mention of Arachnia in the game, there is a implication to her which is backed up in the gw.dat info. However, like the original article said, it is unanswered and Linsey has stated that she could not respond on the matter. So therefore, it should go under Notes or Trivia - with the canonicity unclear mention - but not removed entirely. At least until any comments on Arachnia from Anet. -- Konig Des Todes 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that Arachnia could be the one that created the Dryders? Seeing that they are in both the Realm of Torment and the Underworld in GW1, it would make sense that they had a relation to a "forgotten" god that abandoned them after its death. Paddymew 14:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In my original research on Arachnia, I proposed that, along with being the creator of most/all insect(oid)s like how the Great Dwarf was the creator of all dwarves. It is definably possible, if Arachnia is even canon lore. Though most people stick to Dryders being followers and creations of Dhuum. -- Konig Des Todes 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GW.DAT IS NOT CANNON. like pling said: "Gaile and/or Regina have said that the stuff in there shouldn't really be taken as canon because they didn't implement it directly in the gameplay or lore for a reason."--64.37.167.162 18:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The gw.dat is not proof of being canon. And what was really said (by Emily Diehl at least) was that she wouldn't comment on things in the .dat because it technically was not released. The original comment can be found here. Effectively, it's simply known to be canon or not, but certainly should not be treated as indefinitely canon. Konig/talk 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

All religions or just the True Gods?

This article is used on the Template:God nav as the general page for the gods, yet it only talks about the human gods. So should the page be only about the human gods, or should it be a general page for the various gods/religions (thus including the Spirits of the Wild and other deities that may appear in GW2 on a general whole scale)? -- Konig/talk 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could be a disambiguation page that links to all the other belief systems, but "Gods of Tyria" does tend to refer to the human pantheon. Perhaps we could place an article elsewhere as a disambiguation page that the template can link to. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how about creating a page called "Religions of Tyria" (containing general descriptions about the big religions, and the whole descriptions for minor religions like what would be on par to the skale cultists or the stone face cult quest chain from NF), having that linked at the top of the template, having the Gods of Tyria page link with "True Gods", and create a page Spirits of the Wild for the collection of the Norn Deities (when we get more information on them, perhaps) - since the spirits and the gods will probably be on par with knowledge about them (hopefully) - and have that page linked in the template once created. -- Konig/talk 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The group has been called the "Six Gods" various times in the art book. Should that be noted in the "Other names" section, or should the article be moved?-- Shew 13:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As per the section above, I suggested True Gods, with a Religions of Tyria page that is a summary page for all religions (since the god template doesn't even touch the non-god religions). -- Konig/talk 14:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says that "True Gods" originated "from a time when their divinity was in doubt." I think the page should reflect what they're currently called, so I guess a few instances of "Six Gods" isn't substantial enough to call for a move yet, but I don't think we should call the article "True Gods" unless that's how ANet refers to them in GW2. As for the religions page, I like that idea. Off topic: I'm combining this section with the one above.-- Shew 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think simply calling them "human gods" is desirable, as the actual number seems to fluctuate a bit and it is clear who believes in them. 'True' indicates a very human viewpoint so if possible it should avoided. The overview religions page is great idea - I think that the gods nav in it current form doesn't cover all of the spirituality which will apparently be expressed in the GW2 universe. -- Aspectacle  02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking back through the GW2 interviews, they've been referred to as the Six Gods. I think if there's an official name for the group, the article should bear that name. Of course, there have been multiple names for the group in the past.-- Shew 04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

@Aspectacle, although they are not worshiped as the only gods, they are the only real gods in Tyria - the Spirits of the Wild (norn spirits) are the closest things to gods, and they are still just spirits. So calling them the True Gods isn't a very follower view (I wouldn't say human view as there are more races than humans who worship them). And all races acknowledge the True Gods' existence. @Shew, I don't think there is a single official term, they've been called Old Gods, Tyrian Gods, Five Gods, Six Gods, True Gods, Human Gods (used in a few interviews for GW2 - though they are not only worshiped by humans). True Gods and Six Gods seem to be the most accurate. I guess we can wait until we get more references to the gods in GW2 lore. -- Konig/talk 14:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

So, how should the word "god" be capitalized? Chriskang 22:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

God. Anet has been putting any use of the word as God instead of god. -- Konig/talk 00:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the case in GW1. I'm not so sure for GW2, with the new house style. The word is lower case in the human and charr articles, for example. Chriskang 07:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

human and charr are lowercase to avoid the grammatical and logical nightmare it is to be sure which one to capitalize. Since it is grammatically correct to lowercase human, they did the same for the other 5 races. Puts them all on the same, familiar and generic level. Gods, are on a completely different level.--Corsair@Yarrr 07:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

God(s/ess/esses) has been capitalized elsewhere, such as blog posts by Ree, and the book. -- Konig/talk 08:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Something I noticed while looking through the book again - variants of gods has only been capitalized in reference to the Human Gods (i.e., Grenth, Dwayna, etc.) not false gods (titans, destroyers, mursaat). -- Konig/talk 12:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As we have seen that the words "god" and "goddess" are never capitalized in game, I suggest to remove the capitalization here too. Chriskang 00:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed we should remove the capitals.--Emmisary 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anet needs to be more straight forward with how they word things *cries* -- Konig/talk 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It should be mentioned that cases of "Six Gods" and "Human Gods" (and "Five Gods," "True Gods," "Old Gods," and "Tyrian Gods" - these are used throughout GW1 not GW2, btw) are proper nouns and should remain capitalized. -- Konig/talk 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird and pretty inconsistent, IMO. Human is lower cased throughout and you are lower casing every reference to god and goddess in all the other pages. I just wanted to make a casual mention the gods of the humans and it has to be a title now?

Just raising my objection to this decision, but I'm not going to argue it any further. I find the discussions on capitalisation pretty tedious. -_- -- Aspectacle  00:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It always was a proper noun. Ever since August of last year the six have been referred to as "Human Gods" far more than "Six Gods" - go read Ghosts of Ascalon, or just look at the timeline, it has Human Gods as capitalized in every case.

Proper nouns are always capitalized and that is not inconsistent with the non-proper noun of "god(s/ess/esses)." -- Konig/talk 00:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When saying something like the SiX Gods then it should be capital but stuff like "God of fire and war" shouldn't be. --Emmisary 02:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Konig/talk 02:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Role of Gods in GW2?

Are we yet (as a community) aware of the role the gods are expected to play in GW2? We know the Elder Dragons are alledged to surpass the gods in their power, and we've already seen footage of ToA being underwater - How much influence will they continue to give? Considering the Sylvari don't believe in them and yet the gods are supposed to fuel the profession's indiviudal powers, can we expect "divine aid" against the Elder Dragons or will they "fall from grace?" --Harry. 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

They have some influence, but it's very minute. That's all I know/recall. It's probably just going to be statue blessings and no more access to the Underworld/Fissure of Woe/other places. As to the professions getting their power from the gods - I don't think this is the case, per say, due to other races such as the charr having professions like the players during GW1. As such, I think it's more that the gods bless those professions because they like them, in other words, they boost the professions and are not the sole "fuel" as you put it. -- Konig/talk 21:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There might be access to UW/FoW through the Temple of Grenth in the Shiverpeaks and the Temple of Balthazar in the Maguuma, but otherwise with the profession part, they were never powered by the gods, certain parts of a profession related to a certain god, but nothing past that except the dervish. - Giant Nuker 02:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see - Thanks for the clarifying on the profession/god role. I'm still curious though, as Arenanet haven't really said (As far as I know) much on Gods. I'm certain they won't forget them, just..As a big part of the game's lore, it'll be interesting, to say the least. --Harry. 10:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think this page, since its no longer about human gods, should have basic information about all the gods, including Koda and the Great Dwarf. - Lucian 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Eive 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagreed. I'd rather have a gw2w version of gw1:Religions of Tyria on a like-named page. There are faiths without gods. Why exclude them? -- Konig/talk 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. so... just make [[Religions of Tyria]]. - Lucian 5:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or [[Faiths of Tyria]] or better yet, [[Tyrian Faiths]]... Faiths of Tyria just sounds better imo. - Lucian 5:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was this moved?

Humans aren't the only race to worship these gods/goddesses. There are several races in GW that worship the same deities, and the quaggan worship Melandru, even if they refer to her by a slightly different name.-- Shew 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It was also never discussed (at least, from what I can see). Moves such as this should be discussed first, (and I personally think it should be "Gods of Tyria"). Aqua (T|C) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In GW2 (or rather, interviews and the books revolving around gw2), they are always being referred to either as "Human Gods" or "Six Gods" (the later only being by humans) - this is just to use an official term rather than an unofficial one. -- Konig/talk 22:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'd prefer this article to be the "Six Gods." Is the grouping of them only recognized by the humans? If so, that'd be perfect.-- Shew 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Recognize" or "worship"? If the former, everyone does - more or less (some just question the all-powerfulness and divinity aspects). Worship? As a group, only human and forgotten known (the later pretty much being gone from the world), but individuals are worshiped elsewhere (quaggan worship Melandru, some dwarves worshiped Dwayna and Grenth, some centaurs worship/serve Balthazar (gw1:Eternal Paragon), and at least one naga is attributed to Dwayna). But worship the whole? Unknown. -- Konig/talk 23:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...I guess worship. That way it makes it so it doesn't sound like their specifically worshiped by humanity, but the group as a whole is worshiped by humanity/referred to as the Six Gods by humanity.-- Shew 15:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I disagree with moving it to "Six Gods" - what if something like what happened in Nightfall happens again where the number of the gods change? It'll mean we'd have to change it to a number ambiguous page like what happened with the gw1wiki. "Human Gods" is better because it's a common term that players will recognize (currently the most used term among gw2 info - being interviews, demo, and books), and it won't be needing a future change if something happens (because they're always be the gods of the humans). -- Konig/talk 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If anything substantial like that happens, it wouldn't be a problem moving it again, given that this would need to be a redirect. Anyways, I don't have an issue with it staying here anymore. I still think the reasoning behind moving it is valid, though.-- Shew 23:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's not as clear as "the Six Gods", IMO. "Six Gods" isn't a good title, either; I doubt they have ever been refered to that, as "Six Gods" is simply about a group of six gods, while "the Six Gods" is clearly about the group of gods collectively called "the Six".

"Human Gods" has a similar problem. It's not the same as "gods of the humans"; "Human Gods" may both mean "gods who are humans" and "gods who are worshipped by humans". Considering that, as stated above, humans are not the only ones who worhsip some of those gods, calling them just "Human Gods" is misleading.

Regardless if the number of gods change, though, the gods have been referenced by as "the Six Gods". If there ever happens to be a change in that number, we would still have plenty of old references describing the current gods as the six, so the title "the Six Gods" would still make sense.

I do somewhat question the need to capitalize "Gods"; as far as I know, people only use God when they're speaking about the monotheistic entity, not as a plural for multiple gods in a pantheon. Erasculio 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The capitalization was used in the recent blog post regarding humans. As it refers to the group, and not necessarily gods in particular, it's necessary.-- Shew 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer this grouping better. Although multiple races worship, these gods created the human race and so, shouldn't they be called human gods or god? - Lucian 0:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They didn't create the human race. Erasculio 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing says they didn't create it. It's just that nothing says they did. We only know they brought humanity from elsewhere - as they did for the forgotten. They are referred to with "the" in front of either "Human Gods" or "Six Gods" - "the" is not part of their title, it's just a way to denote that they are the gods, not merely "a group of six gods."

Either way, this is their universal name that is shared by all major, and some minor, races. and that, imo, is far more important to use than a name used by a single race. -- Konig/talk 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, "the Six Gods (now called the Six Human Gods by other races) ..." via here. Just thought I'd throw this in here.-- Shew 13:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's almost as if someone was reading this... pling 13:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

:O-- Shew 13:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

""the" is not part of their title, it's just a way to denote that they are the gods, not merely "a group of six gods."": uh, that's exactly why we should name the article "The Six Human Gods" instead of just "Six Human Gods". The former is how the group of gods is called, the latter is what we would call a list naming six of the human gods. Is anyone expecting to ever use the "Six Human Gods" title without prefacing it with a "the"? Erasculio 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate including "the" in any article name, as it's simply a descriptive word.-- Shew 14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll use Pling's argument here about how honorifics/titles should not be mentioned in the article name, but addressed when first referencing the article's subject. I think the same should be applied to the usage of "the." The first sentence can include "The Six Human Gods," but the article should just be "Six Human Gods."-- Shew 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with both you and with Pling's argument (IMO, the article should be named "Caudecus the Wise" at least). "Six Human Gods" is a misleading title; it sounds as if it were a list, not a specific group of beings. Erasculio 15:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Era: I disagree. They are the Six Gods, not the six gods. That's enough imo, there's no need for "the" and tbh I think adding "the" to it just makes it look bad. The only cases of "the" should be where there's a "the" in the in-game name (e.g., the Underworld. For instance, the Realm of Torment is always referred to as "the Realm of Torment" because there is no other place named the Realm of Torment. Likewise, they're referred to as "the Six Gods" - just as the Black Citadel is not "the Black Citadel" but merely "Black Citadel." If we add a the to this group, despite it being a proper noun of "Six/Human/Six Human Gods" then we should do that to every article that's a proper noun. Unless you want inconsistency.
BTW, I have not yet read the update (even yesterday's blog post), but if they're called the Six Human Gods there, then I concur. -- Konig/talk 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no ambiguity in your examples. The Realm of Torment... Is pretty much the Realm of Torment; no one is going to look at the "Realm of Torment" article believing it's about something else simply because there's nothing else it could possibly be about (as you have said yourself). "Six Gods", in other hand, is misleading - such title does not describe if the article is about a group of gods collectively known as "the Six Gods", or if it's just about six of the gods. Or, as you have mentioned eaelier, ""the" is not part of their title, it's just a way to denote that they are the gods, not merely "a group of six gods"". Just like we use that "the" when mentioning the gods so people don't assume they're just a random grouping of six gods (unlike the purpose of the "the" in "the Realm of Torment" and "the Black Citadel"), we should also use the "The" in this article's title. You have pretty much already stated all those arguments; I don't understand how you have reached the different conclusion. Erasculio 21:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"no one is going to look at the "Realm of Torment" article believing it's about something else simply because there's nothing else it could possibly be about" No one's going to look at this article and assume it isn't about the six gods worshiped primarily by humans (if not solely as a group now that the forgotten, the only other group to worship all six, were next to extinct during gw1). The point of the example for the Realm of Torment was to denote that it isn't merely "a realm full of torment" but it is called the "Realm of Torment" - likewise, the Six Gods isn't merely "six gods" but are the "Six Gods." The capitalization of the group (and thus article title), should be enough. By your argument of "Six Gods" being misleading, then so too is Spirits of the Wild, so to is gw1:Realm of Torment, and so many other things which a lowercased version of the name could become a phrase meaning a large number of things. And the purpose of the in "the Realm of Torment" and "the Black Citadel" is the exact same thing. It's denoting that it's the Realm of Torment and the Black Citadel, not merely a realm of torment or a black citadel. There's no need for "the" in the article title unless it's part of the actual name (ala "The Rift", The Mists, gw1:The Underworld). "The" is simply not part of this article's title. It's merely an article (grammar meaning...). -- Konig/talk 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"No one's going to look at this article and assume it isn't about the six gods worshiped primarily by humans": why not? Anyone could come here and think it's a list of six of the gods. If someone went to the Realm of Torment and thought it was about a realm of torment - they would actually be right, that's what the Realm of Torment is. If someone looked at the Spirits of the Wild article and though it was about spirits of the wild - they would be right, especially considering how the norn see those spirits (as in, some are more important than others, but they are not limited only to the ones we mentioned at the article itself). The only article in any of your examples in which the title does not indicate exactly what the article is about is "Six Human Gods".

"The capitalization of the group (and thus article title), should be enough": it isn't. The capitalization of both "Human" and "Gods" is controverse (the first in this wiki, since so many people still think the proper form is "Charr", "Norn", etc, and the second in general, as the usage of "Gods" in the English language is far less consistent than it should be).

This article isn't about six of the gods. It's about the group collectively called "the Six Human Gods". As you mentioned yourself, the "the" is necessary "so people don't assume they're just a random grouping of six gods"; I'm rather sure you are well aware that we don't need the "the" in "Black Citadel" so people don't assume it's just a random grouping of six black citadels. Erasculio 22:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it is a waste of bytes to interject a comment when you two go into full quote mode against each other. But.... I think "Six Human Gods" is an excellent name and it is such an obvious compromise of the previous options I'm disappointed we didn't think of it ourselves. -- aspectacle  22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As for not having read all of this, with no actual intention to do so; I will still state my 2 cents: The "Human Gods" are not worshipped solely by humans. In fact, humans are only one of the many races who worship these gods. The Six Gods works, because the other races do not worship gods. (Sylvari trust in the Dream of Dreams, asura in Eternal Alchemy, norn in the Spirits and charr in... something not titled gods.) So basically, why was it moved indeed? - Infinite - talk 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you aren't going to read a section, don't post a question that has already been answered and expect everyone to copypaste the posts they already made for your convenience. -Auron 23:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Era's "why not?" - because there is no other group of six gods, because once one starts reading the article, it's obvious who it's about. Other than these six, name any group of six deities explicitly called "Six Gods" - and use logic. Why would there be an article about "a list of six of the gods" unless they were an explicit group of gods? Not to mention that other than the Six, there is only one god. There is no other six gods that are grouped together because there's not even enough gods. As Infinite said, albeit not in the best way, there's just no other group of gods. -- Konig/talk 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

With now having read all of it, how about moving it to "Gods", even if it means including Koda? - Infinite - talk 23:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the human's pantheon of six gods. Broadening it to include koda doesn't really make sense. -- aspectacle  23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But they are all gods, Koda could be linked outwards. The essence is that they are all gods, but that the humans only focus on 6 of them, whereas other races focus on less. Gods are gods, Koda is not an exception to the gods. And the 6 gods that the humans worship are not special gods. Unless Koda turns out to be neither god nor spirit, then he can have his own term. But for now, They're all gods. Gods with outgoing link to Koda? - Infinite - talk 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanna ask this? Why Six human gods when Abaddon, Dhuum, and Abaddon's unnamed predecessor were also gods. That makes 9 gods... even if no one worships them anymore... Just a question and yes, this page needs move. - Lucian 0:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both on the complete derailment of the topic! I will move the page to "Six Human Gods" - the only on-topic objection was Eras. I will not include the 'the' for consistency reasons with other similar titles on the wiki. -- aspectacle  00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, mine was ontopic... soo... sarcasm just isn't good. - Lucian 0:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, how was my comment off-topic? The original topic was shifted prior to my comments into the topic I replied on. So like, sarcasm less. - Infinite - talk 00:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Infinite: This article is about the Human Gods. It was discussed here to make an encompassing faith page which would include all gods (and other faiths). IMO, it would be poor to have a page on all gods and not a page about this group of gods, or leave the other faiths out of it. Also since the term "god" is subjective in the world of Tyria...
@Lucian: There are only six gods at a time. Abaddon, Dhuum, and Abaddon's predecessor are former gods. -- Konig/talk 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, I never noticed that minor discussion. Carry on~ - Infinite - talk 00:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. @Konig that wasn't my comment. :) -- aspectacle  00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, you were still thinking it. -- Konig/talk 00:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Konig, thats what I wanted. - Lucian 1:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one will move the Profession article to "Eight Playable Professions" next. Erasculio 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference there that I'm sure you're aware of. Other races, in-game, refer to them as the "Six Human Gods." I haven't heard anything yet that indicates in-game characters call them the "Eight Playable Professions."-- Shew 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still questioning the lack of a "the"; the current title gives me the feeling the article is a list of six of the human gods, just like a "Eight Playable Professions" would give me the impression it's a list of the playable professions. Erasculio 01:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you need to worry about that. The article was made for people who read it, not just the title. People will understand that it's a group when they read the first sentence.-- Shew 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still think that "Six Human Gods" will be requiring lots of [[Six Human Gods|<other way to say it>]] than "Human Gods" and that it would be best off as Human Gods, personally. -- Konig/talk 02:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

its fine as it is.--Icyyy Blue 05:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Has anyone noticed the double entendre? They're not human gods...?(Xu Davella 11:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

"Ancient ones"

Am I the only one who instantly thinks of "The Old Ones" of the Lovecraft/Cthulu thing? The Slayer 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for this.CAPV 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin lore story being written

I write short lore stories for my guild on the Devona's Rest server. Most of them involve things like time travel, alternate realities, 'What if...?' situations, and more. I'm in the process of writing a new lore about the origins of the current pantheon of gods, from their mortal childhoods to their ascension to immortality. From that point, the story will continue in a sequel, from their early trials of using cosmic powers all the way to the Exodus itself. Only the prologue and a few chapters are done so far. When it's all finished, I'll set up a website and post it there for everyone to read. Keep in mind, this is just my personal creative take on their origins and are not to be considered as official facts. --Azeena Videll (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

History secton of the article

"the Six Gods arrived on the world" - Is it explicitly stated (and where) that it was the six who arrived on Tyria?

Have they always been six (and the time between Exodus and Nightfall leading to a misnomer)? Steve1 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as we're aware, it has always been Six. It was only ever Five because knowledge of Abaddon was wiped away from records. Konig 06:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Scriptures/Parables of the gods suggestion

I would like to suggest that we replace the Scriptures of the Gods on the top of their pages with the Parables from Siren's Landing since I think that quote is more important for GW2 only players to read that section as it gives a clear image of their personalities (in the current cannon), This would be a nice way to make the GW1 and GW2 wiki pages feel more distinct (which in my opinion is a positive). To preserve the information for when the reader wants to delve deeper into the lore we could re-add that information to either a bookwork or a lore section on the respective god's page. Let me know what you guys think of this suggestion--Doctor Refrence (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Consistency and spoilers

There's some confusion about how the page is presented. Those who have played through PoF know: 1) Balthazar is dead and therefore definitely no longer one of the Six, though he was rejected from that group well before then, possibly around the time of the Exodus; and 2) a god might die/be killed, but a god's power is not destroyed (cf. Abaddon) and someone or something is supposed to assume the former god's power and authority in such a case - whether or not this makes Kralkatorrik the effective successor to Balthazar, since he supposedly absorbed most of Balthazar's power at the time of his death, is unclear. It's possible that the Five, when removing Balthazar, took his power and divided it amongst themselves.

Nonetheless, we should come to a consensus regarding how the entire page is displayed. Should it primarily reflect information/knowledge as of pre-HoT Tyria, or have there been too many changes/is there too much new information to the point that a majority of the page is hidden behind spoiler tags?Taegun Stormwalker (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no inconsistency. All main S3/PoF story stuff is behind the {{spoilers}}. These spoilers are pretty major, hence why those tags exist. What is not behind those tags are non-spoilers. If you refer to the list - that's hardly an inconsistency either, since until that one particular mission (Facing the Truth), Balthazar is presented as one of the Six even if humans hadn't known otherwise. Since it's a major spoiler to not list Balthazar, he needs to be listed.

"Those who have played through PoF know" And that's the problem. This article links to over 200 pre-PoF related articles, and now that PoF has released there will be a steady decline in references to "fighting the fallen god of war" just as there has been a steady decline in references to "sylvari are dragon minions", leading to making this article, particularly about Balthazar, a spoiler to new players or those who haven't spoiled themselves from PoF promotions (on an aside: Anet's release methodology really screws over the grand reveals in the plotlines). This article will be read by a lot of players who have not yet played PoF, and may not know the truth of Balthazar.

As an aside:

"he was rejected from that group well before then, possibly around the time of the Exodus" Definitely not. Kormir was present for Balthazar's shouting match and the decision to not fight the Elder Dragons - though the gods left the world during the Exodus, they only became silent after Nightfall (and this discussion Kormir talks about was half of why they began silence, it turns out - the other half being what Lyssa's Muse says in Nightfall, which Kormir reiterated in Facing the Truth).

"whether or not this makes Kralkatorrik the effective successor to Balthazar, since he supposedly absorbed most of Balthazar's power at the time of his death, is unclear. It's possible that the Five, when removing Balthazar, took his power and divided it amongst themselves." If they could divide his magic, they would have done so with Abaddon instead of keeping him alive, with all his power, imprisoned for a millennia. Balthazar had been stripped of his power, what Kralkatorrik took was 100% not divine magic but magic from the Maguuma Bloodstone, Primordus, and Jormag (this is even shown in the final cinematic, where we see red (Primordus) sky, blue-black (Jormag) and lime (Mordremoth) crystals, and green/black (Zhaitan) mist around the "revived then branded" devourer). We also know that Balthazar has a successor because Kormir refers to the gods as "the Six", despite the fact that for almost all of her mortal life she knew them as "the Five" and if Balthazar had no successor, it'd be almost all of her divine life as well. It should be habitual for Kormir to say "the Five" rather than "the Six" but she calls the group "the Six" multiple times. Konig (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Random question, since Lyssa is made of twins, couldn't that possibly make up for the loss of Balthazar as technically there would still be six individuals? - Do_odleplex 03:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unanswerable. We don't know if Lyssa is "really" twins or not. --Idris (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that between the time of the Exodus and Nightfall they went by The Five, and not The Six, and the time before the Exodus they went by The Six and not The Seven... no, Doodle, regardless of Idris' comment. Konig (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If you really reckon she's not two, why didn't you bring this logic up when I asked about it the other day? I think you recognise that both Lyssa and the exact nature of the Gods' power are too mysterious for us to be able to answer this question yet. --Idris (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My point wasn't whether or not she's two beings. It's that her twin nature does not increase the number of gods which they refer to themselves as. They referred to themselves as The Six pre-Exodus, and The Five post-Exodus pre-Nightfall and The Six post-Nightfall. Lyssa's twin nature was never in fluctuation at these points, as evident by the naming. She may be two beings, or may not be, but she is one god. Konig (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we interpreted her question differently. I interpreted it to be "did Lyssa take advantage of her two-ness to split herself into an extra god"? For example, before, both Ilya and Lyss shared the power of Lyssa, but now Ilya possesses all of Lyssa's power, and Lyss has Balthazar's power. --Idris (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That may be a possible case, without any hints to it (and Balthazar would probably be non-too-happy about it either), but that would mean Lyssa is no more and Kormir still calls her Lyssa. So that is most likely not the case - Kormir's lines would have to be a red herring for it to be so; and ArenaNet doesn't really do red herrings - they either give us obvious clues, or no real clues at all. I cannot think of a single red herring in all of the GW franchise except arguably Ghosts of Ascalon which was written by a non-Anet writer. Doodle didn't seem to be asking that at all, however. Konig (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think my take was a valid interpretation of Doodle's question; you just see it differently, which is also valid. But yeah, that's a good point about Kormir failing to allude to Lyssa not being the same "Lyssa" anymore. I would argue that since she's referring to Lyssa in the past tense, that might explain the failure to use her current name... but people don't really do this. Unless they want to make a point about disagreeing with the change. You never know, though, maybe whichever twin was left with all of Lyssa's power was so used to being "Lyssa" that she just kept using the name. --Idris (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Kormir also speaks of Lyssa in the present tense though. And why would they be used to Lyssa over Lyss and Ilya? And this is all assuming that the two can be separated. If they could, why didn't they when Abaddon fell? Konig (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

<shrug> Like I said. Currently unanswerable. --Idris (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Balthazar's successor

How do we know that Balthazar has a successor? –Santax (talk · contribs) 18:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any confirmation that he has one, but the final mission of Nightfall made it clear that a god's power can't be destroyed -- so if Balthazar's power wasn't given to a successor, what on earth happened to it? I think a successor is likely enough that we can make references to one, though I don't want to see it treated as canon. --Idris (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Magic in general can't be destroyed, but Balthazar's power could have easily been transferred to another vessel without there being some new god out there that we've never heard of. It could have been given to one or more of the other gods, for example, in the way that Kormir took on most of Abaddon's domain after her ascension but Lyssa took on water (and in the same way that Balthazar threatened to defeat the other gods and claim their power for his own) or it could have been stored in some kind of purpose-built device like a Bloodstone. I can think of more fantastical possibilities, but imo to take any of these and state them as fact would be just as speculative as it is to say that Balthazar has a successor.

Besides, it's dangerous to make inferences based on what we think we know of the GW's universe's rules, as these have never fully been presented to the playerbase (and finding out what those rules are forms a big part of the story). To avoid misleading readers, at the very least we should say "Balthazar's presumed successor", but given that we don't appear to have anything confirming that to be the case and other possibilities exist, it's safest just to not mention it at all. If our documentation is complete and it's really that obvious, readers will be able to infer it for themselves. –Santax (talk · contribs) 18:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

" To avoid misleading readers, at the very least we should say "Balthazar's presumed successor"" -- This is pretty much what I had in mind when I said I don't want to see it treated as canon. We can say we suspect it, but no more. My preference would be to leave it at "It is unknown if Balthazar's power was transferred to a successor." --Idris (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Kormir still calls the group The Six. "He is no longer one of the Six." This means there's still six gods. Otherwise she'd be calling them The Five like Rytlock did, as that's the name she's known the group for most of her mortal life and, had Balthazar no successor, would be the name she knew for most of her divine life as well.

Also, Lyssa didn't take any of Abaddon's power. I don't know why you keep insisting that. She had always held some relevance to water's reflective surface since Nightfall, and as we see in GW2 even before then in terms of Tyria's perspective. Kormir took all of Abaddon's power, as we saw first hand. Or would you say Kormir took order and spirit from Dwayna, and judgment from Grenth as well? The domains shifted about when Kormir rose, not because Abaddon's power was divvied up, but because those secondary domains don't seem tied intrinsically to the gods' power. Konig (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If that dialogue was supposed to communicate to players that Balthazar has a successor, do you not think that Kormir (or Kasmeer, for that matter) would have made a little more of it, or that it would have been mentioned somewhere else in Kormir's library? I hope that ANet's writing is better than just dropping "btw, there's been an addition to the pantheon of gods first established in the Prophecies manual, but anyways..." on a group of characters and not having them comment. A fuller account of the dialogue you refer to is as follows:

"Lady Kasmeer Meade: "I—please excuse me, Goddess. Perhaps I wasn't clear—we can't hope to defeat Balthazar without the aid of the Six.""

"Rytlock Brimstone: "Or the five. Balthazar is one of the Six.""

"Kormir: "No. He isn't. Balthazar has been stripped of his claim and title. He is no longer one of the Six.""

Why does Kasmeer ask for the help of the Six, even though as far as she knows Balthazar is one of them and therefore she is asking Balthazar for help in defeating himself? Does she know something that we don't know about his successor? Or maybe we're just misreading that dialogue and the point of that exchange isn't to drop a huge incongruous lore bomb right in the middle of an unrelated conversation and have nobody react to it, but to communicate to players that Balthazar is no longer considered a member of the Six, which is the name of the human pantheon. –Santax (talk · contribs) 19:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Stay on topic, lads. Focus on solutions rather than who's the best at lore. --Idris (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)