Talk:Renegade Sympathizer
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Renegade Sympathizer[edit]
Saying that these are not "Renegades" is like saying those Americans who sympathised with the American War of Independence were not part of it. It's hair-splitting… Being a renegade is a state of mind/attitude/belief. It's not an official body that people sign up to. --Claret (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am very passionate about whether they are flagged as renegades or not. I am prepared to fight till my last breath to prevent them from being listed as renegades. Or possibly to have them listed. I'm not sure what yet, but I have a very strong opinion about it, whatever it is. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- From what I remember, the sympathizers don't wear the same outfits as the true renegades. For me, that's enough to say they're not part of the group. —Dr Ishmael 01:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am a wiki editor, and therefore my opinion is valuable. It is thus: who cars -- Armond Warblade 02:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would say they are not renegades because they're still part of the High Legions. It would be like saying the Separatist Sympathizers are Separatists, even though they're just vocal about their beliefs. The difference with your example Claret I believe lies in the whole "vocal versus action" mentality - Separatists and Renegades are open terrorists. Just because you agree with the ideals of a terrorist doesn't mean you are a terrorist nor does it mean that you agree with the terrorists' means of fulfilling their ideals. Mechanically, I don't think they'd count as Renegades. Lorically, they certainly aren't. They are members of the Ash, Blood, and Iron Legions even if they hate humans - the Renegades are defectors and thus not part of the Ash, Blood, and Iron Legions; it is impossible to be part of both the Renegades and the High Legions as they are contradictory states. Konig 02:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's certainly and demonstrably possible to be a member of two or more bodies at the same time. Incidentally, terrorists are only terrorists by the other side's definition. As a hypothetical example, a member of the US Army who is spying for the German government is an American Army member, and a German spy. So, saying that they are not a member of the German spies group because they are a member of the US Army is obviously wrong. Especially since the renegades are an obviously irregular group.
- And Auron, it matters not a bit, just like the whole wiki. It's about a game and therefore without any real importance. Why do I care? Because I have a view and I find the opposite view to be without merit, based on poor logic. --Claret (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would say they are not renegades because they're still part of the High Legions. It would be like saying the Separatist Sympathizers are Separatists, even though they're just vocal about their beliefs. The difference with your example Claret I believe lies in the whole "vocal versus action" mentality - Separatists and Renegades are open terrorists. Just because you agree with the ideals of a terrorist doesn't mean you are a terrorist nor does it mean that you agree with the terrorists' means of fulfilling their ideals. Mechanically, I don't think they'd count as Renegades. Lorically, they certainly aren't. They are members of the Ash, Blood, and Iron Legions even if they hate humans - the Renegades are defectors and thus not part of the Ash, Blood, and Iron Legions; it is impossible to be part of both the Renegades and the High Legions as they are contradictory states. Konig 02:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am a wiki editor, and therefore my opinion is valuable. It is thus: who cars -- Armond Warblade 02:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Auron Warblade, best contributor. Well, if you want to debate it, go ahead. I don't really have an opinion either way, I just thought I'd try to keep things in perspective. -- Armond Warblade 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- If I don't get my way, I'm going to become very very angry. Psycho Robot (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, Armond ofc. The game actually has quite a few examples of atypical members of a usually hostile group, Bandit Turncoat being one. And calm down, Psycho Robot, it's a nice academic discussion with no heat. Or hopefully it is. --Claret (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- In all honesty, the discussion is off topic and ends up attracting discussion that shouldn't be on this page. If the NPC is affiliated with bandits or whatever organization, they will contribute to slayer. Otherwise, they don't have an organization. By all means, continue on Claret's talk page if this is an important subject and cannot be ignored.--Relyk ~ talk < 05:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- My final say: Yes, someone can indeed be part of multiple groups. However, they cannot be of opposing groups without being a double agent - in which case, they are only part of one group in order to spy and isn't "technically" part of said group - they're an infiltrator. By definition, a sympathizer is not someone of a group, but someone who sympathizes with the group (so these guys would not be Renegades). You cannot kill these individuals so you cannot determine what - if any - mechanical affiliation there is. So one must either leave it blank or go with lore in such a case. Either way, this topic isn't of such importance to start it up elsewhere and I wanted to have that final response. Konig 07:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- In all honesty, the discussion is off topic and ends up attracting discussion that shouldn't be on this page. If the NPC is affiliated with bandits or whatever organization, they will contribute to slayer. Otherwise, they don't have an organization. By all means, continue on Claret's talk page if this is an important subject and cannot be ignored.--Relyk ~ talk < 05:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, Armond ofc. The game actually has quite a few examples of atypical members of a usually hostile group, Bandit Turncoat being one. And calm down, Psycho Robot, it's a nice academic discussion with no heat. Or hopefully it is. --Claret (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)