Talk:Spirit

Undead?
Has anyone tried if Binding Ritual Spirits are undead? -- 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Split
I see a high risk of redundant information of this article with Nature Ritual and Binding Ritual. I'd prefer if we keep it like it was before: Make Spirit a disambig page between Ghost, Nature Ritual and Binding Ritual and treat the respective spirits there. -- 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I came here to look at this page to see if there was information on the interactions of spirits with effects (Conditions, Hexes, Enchants), health per level, etc. The information is good, but I think it should be more generic for this page. --Ravious 11:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see a high risk of redundant information of Nature Ritual and Binding Ritual, because of what Spirits share in common. Thus I actually would rather propose make the rituals redirect here.  There is also the option of making sure the ritual pages only explain about the rituals, and the spirits only about the spirits, but that's overly-dividing information into different articles. And Ravious, you can't exactly agree with someone when you are proposing something differently.  Tetris is proposing to remove all contents from this page, whereas you are proposing to make this page cover things that are only generically related to spirits.
 * Anyways, I disagree making this page a disambig, since Spirit is a proper target type in the game, and the game doesn't care about the difference between Binding vs Natural spirits (AND the Binding spirits are sufficiently diverse themselves we might as well keep all the diversity in the same page). Thus someone who wish to look up Spirit as a target type has one centralized place to look things up, as opposed to checking two different articles to see if the information Ravious is looking for exists and/or the same for spirits created by different kind of rituals. -PanSola 15:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I could live with that, but in that case the article must mention Ghosts as the third type of Spirits more prominently, because clearly Ghosts are spirits too. See Talk:Ghost. -- 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Created?
"Spirits are [...] created by rituals" <- I doubt that the ritual creates the spirit. I think the spririt was already there before being summoned. It's just that it is living in the ethereal world and hence invisible to the mortal eye. Through the conjuring ritual the spririt is bound and becomes visible for a limited time. At least this is how it works according to common myth. I'll change the article accordingly. -- 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I maintain that Guild Wars do many things different from common myths, and we should only go by what is in-game and not assume what is common. I specifically checked to make sure Binding Rituals also say "Create a level blah spirit...", just like Nature Rituals, when I wrote that line.  They are is typically created because there is that one odd skill which isn't a ritual and use different wording.
 * Having said that, the Chinese localization does say "Summon" instead of "Create". But they also translate the world "Folly" into "Weird Building" (which is semi-acceptable for Wizard's Folly, if you don't care about being literal, as the place does have that tower.  But they also did the same with Witman's Folly, and that just make absolutely no sense).
 * Until Anet in their next revamp of skill descriptions modify the wording from "Create" to "Summon", I'm going to continue arguing they are typically created as opposed to summoned. Does it make any sense?  I think it's just on the edge of being rationalizable, but I still will go with whatever the game says. -PanSola 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about they summon the misterious dark matter creature, which insantly dies after smelling the summoners bad breath and leaves a spirit? =P --Xeeron 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that does nothing to reconcil the "Create" part, but thanks for trying anyways d-: -PanSola 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we replace the word "create" with "summon"? I think that's a better term, and it leaves some room for interpretation. -- 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the issue being "Create" implies coming into being, whereas "Summon" implies calling to appear at the location. Add to the fact that somewhere its mentioned (not in game, but either in the manual or website) that the Nature spirits are totems, it just feels weird to "summon" them.  What is wrong with going by wording of the game (just to remind again, the in-game description say "Create")? -PanSola 06:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We already had the discussion about "totems" in Talk: Ghost. I find the term "totem" very missleading, because to most people "totem" means a dead object, although according to Wikipedia it can also be a supernatural being. The Nature Ritual spirits in GuildWars are not dead objects. If you look very closely, they move slightly and they blink their eyes. They are more like small Druids who stay in one position.
 * One more thing: The term "Binding Ritual" implies that the spirit is bound by the ritual, not created. You can actually see the ethereal chains that bind the spirit. Why would you have to bind something that you created? And what would happen if the spirit breaks the chains and escapes? According to my theory it would disappear, back into the ethereal world, and become invisible again.
 * Anyway ... the ingame description clearly says "create". If you insists, we'll use that wording on this wiki, by policy, even though I think ANet actually had "summon" in mind, but didn't put enough precission into their description. *Sigh* -- 08:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tetris, I thought I read in your user page that you had a kid? Binding indicates controling them to do your will, has your child, that you (in part) created, ever done anything that was against your will?  If not just wait until he/she is a little older, it will happen.  :P  And I agree that we should go with the in-game terminology as we have in the past.  If in-game it says "create" we should use create.  --Rainith 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)