Talk:Drakkar

Hey there, I have no clue how to edit Wiki according to the style and such and such. This is my first time editing wiki on any level at all, so forgive anything wrong I do, I mean well, lol.

I noticed you have no pictures of Drakkar, and I have quite alot of them, so I would like to ask if you would like any to be added to the wiki page. Or perhaps a wiki link (The "[1]" thngs) linking people to the GW Guru forum where I have posted a large number of them to be put on the Drakkar page...

Anyway, my Guru thread is here: [1] Take anything you wish from it

EDIT: Hey cool I did a [1] link thing =o May I simply add it to the main Drakkar page? It does include some of the only decent screens of the Drakkar I've seen anywhere, I just thought I best ask before I get banned for something I do wrong by mistake :S

--81.99.192.142 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Malchior

Drakkar's name

Drak - Kar :

Drakon means dragon in hebrew and Kar means Cold in hebrew. since he is frozen, i dont think it is a coinsidence. I will add it to a Trivia section on the article.

"Drakkar" is the name of Viking longships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longship - and means not by coincidence dragon/serpent. No wonder the viking-inspired Norn named this area Drakkar Lake. I think you are going unnecessarily far away from the norse word with the hebrew interpretation, but it is really amazing that the words and meaning of Hebrew and Norse language are so similar. --Longasc 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's always Norse with the Norn. Being the same root is not so odd. It's presumably a load word in Hebrew. (From german.) The root is from early germanic langages. Backsword 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

im not going far away at all, i am israeli and neturaly knows hebrew, i noticed that, and said that, becouse it cant be a coinsidence, drakkar actualy is a dragon in an iceberg.

The word "Drakkar" exists 1:1 in a norse language, but you feel the need to relate it to your language. This is biased, sorry. I will just leave it like that for now, as there is little enough known about this dragon besides that it is frozen in a lake. --Longasc 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh just shut up, ok? then its a norse word, so what? its very similar to the Hebrew word, and its absolutely not the first hebrew "easter egg" in the game. I deleted ur massage coz you are actualy the one trying to create a "biased" conversation.

1. Do not delete comments, whether it is your own or someone else's. 2. Try and discuss without insulting each other, and try and reach a consensus. Put forward what you think, then wait for more comments until a joint agreement can be made. -- br12 • (talk) • 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If Drakkar is cold dragon in Hebrew this should definately be included imo. Lyra Valo 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I added that in, but someone took the Hebrew part out. I can't revert it without breaking the GWW:1RR policy >.< The most I could do is add a {{disputed}} tag to it.-- br12 • (talk) • 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, it is rediculous to get into a revert war over trivia that it is impossible to know which is right and which is wrong! As either is equally possible, and until someone checks we have no way of knowing, does it really matter to each person that both possibilities are included? If this is not resolved, all of it will simply be removed... Ale_Jrb (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Until Anet actually relieves the true nature of the meaning on this name, no meaning should be excluded as no where does it state that influences are only taken from one human culture or set of beliefs. If people are going to remove one possibility because they personally believe one reference means more than another then all should be removed. House Of Furyan

Actually, the word when used in the form here, is also one of the names used for female dragons, while a male is called a drake, one could argue thsi only applies to actual drakes, but i've seen this term used for a female dragon in plenty of other places, and I mean the flying, firebreathing, scale armored, real dragons. Lord Zepherr 01:49, March 24, 2009 (UTC)

Can we conclude that everything suggests of a dragon? I mean, it's ridiculous to discuss whether ANet named it after one or the other (or just something random, like me naming my flamingo Abaddon before I knew he existed), but trivia isn't meant to be a guidance as to what thought people had when making it up, it's for things outside Guild Wars that in some way connect to these things. Paddymew 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The name was revealed in an interview by Kill Ten Rats with Jeff Grubb. See here [2] Its Jormag.

Better Pics

i don't know how to add them but it seems the crappy Guild Wiki had better pics of Drakkar and some extra facts http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Drakkar Zachariah Zuan 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit Hole Connection

the fact the rabbits were corrupted, much lke jora's brother, the rabbits may be hostlie due to the Vaettirs but the Vaettirs may be evil in the first place due to drakkar, or mybe, the real bad guys in GW2 are the bunnies, i just don't know--86.137.254.166 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The rabbits are not corrupted, but Vaettir in disguise. Read the bounty in Sifhalla for Nulfastu, Earthbound to understand. If they were corrupted by Drakkar, then they would be ice-covered in portions, if all corruption by Drakkar works like how they did with Svanir. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

PLus I don't understand why, if they were really corrupted like svanir, why they didin't become evil super rabbit things, or why svanir doesn't change into a vaettir, because, unless you want to pull the "oh it works differently for every creature" thing, which is a stretch, it'd seem like the corrupted bunnies and svanir would have similar effects from the corruption, which they don't. Lord Zepherr 22:31 July 6, 2009 (UTC)

The fact that his nature is explained is all the proof we need, but yes, if we didn't have that, unless stated it would have the same general effects on the creatures. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GW2's Best?

Okay, well this is just something I comically came up with in my mind. The Great Destroyer is the General to that sleeping dragon above him (who's name I forget). "Drakkar" and that other dragon above The Great Destroyer are going to be Gods in GW2 right? Well, I was just doing some thinking and thought, if my God chooses a general that can be 55'd...he's not a very good God. But, if my God can change you into a monster while frozen in a lake just by staring at you...well that's my kind of God. :D Not much to discuss, just a comment. Anyone else choose what their race is going to be? I still have to say whatever race follows this dragon guy. Than 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Dragons are not gods. Ancient Dragons do not have powers of gods. Ancient Dragons do have power that rivals the gods. Two common misconceptions, thought I'd point that out in bold first before it gets any further out of line due to that. Primordus (the dragon above the Great Destroyer) can twist stone and lava to life. "Drakkar" can twist snow and ice. From what we know, all Ancient Dragons can twist things with their magic - both living and non-living. Just because something can be farmed doesn't mean that the creature is weak in a lore sense but that there was a way around the creature which the devs did not foresee and the player community eventually found out. Same way Shiro can be solo'd by an Assassin and how at first a Reversal of Damage monk could take out Abaddon with such ease. Only difference is that Abaddon - unlike the others - god "fixed." So, when looking at things in a lore perspective - which you seem to be - you need to take out farming builds and such to quickly kill bosses. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at it from both points to make a joke. ^^ Than 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Drakkar New Anet Confirmed name

According to this article on the Guild Wars 2 wiki and this interview of Anet employees, Drakkar's official name is Jormag but because of my lack of wiki skills, I prefer letting someone else change the name of the article, put in information on the main article and possibly add a redirect from Drakkar as it is still the most commonly use name for that dragon. 82.120.234.68 18:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

With the Viking inspired norns could it be that Jormag is a reference to Jormungandr the world serpent from Viking lore. Dante Broekhart 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

thats already known... --The Holy Dragons 10:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing Talk:Jormag | 72 | 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Jormag Under Drakkar Lake

http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=618333&postcount=443 --92.5.158.173 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag

I disagree. This Elder Dragon may not be a landmark or make an actual appearance, but his magic still affected Jora and Jora's brother. So I think it should stay (or be moved to a more fitting article title like Jormag's Magic, or something). - Infinite - talk 08:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree. He may not be anything other than an easteregg in Eye of the North, but Jormag is just as much a part of the lore as Primordius and Kralkatorrik. Like Infinite said, Jora and Svanir were affected by Jormag's power, through it's lieutenant. This is not something you skip out on. At the very least, make easily accessible links to the GW2 page of Jormag, for further information.81.204.55.135 20:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jormag is not seen in EN, therefore he is not as much a part of gw1's lore as Primordus or Kralkatorrik who are both seen in the game - he's on par to the deep sea dragon and Zhaitan, neither having articles here. Regarding the whole magic thing - that information can and should (if not does) exist on Svanir/Nornbear's, Jora's, and Drakkar Lake's pages. One could even make a "Drakkar Lake (landmark)" article and put it there instead of the explorable area's page - and said landmark article would also include that Jormag's lieutenant is in the lake. Also, Mr. IP, nothing says that they were affected "through [Jormag]'s lieutenant" - honestly that's still a hole in the retcon of the creature not being Jormag. -- Konig/talk 00:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and what links to this article should be changed to go to Jormag's gw2 article anyways (if it hasn't). -- Konig/talk 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the deletion tag because like they said, he might not be present but his magic is, so therefore he should have his own page or

atleast a page about his magic 174.110.208.72 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jormag can be seen under Drakkar lake, and reguardless of whether he's physically seen in Guild Wars or not, we know he exists. Example: Grenth caused a series of events (namely the Underworld) but is never truly depicted outside of murals and statues, with vary in style. Therefore, we do not know which image of Grenth is correct, but we understand his importance to the plot, the same as Jormag afflicting Jora and Svanir.

We were explicitly told by an Anet employee that the creature underneath Drakkar Lake is not Jormag. If you looked at the history, you would see a summary with this url: http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=618333&postcount=443. Go to it. -- Konig/talk 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Konig. Some of the information mentioned above should be put elsewhere. Sardaukar 03:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If we move it, we have to refer to Jormag as a being anyway. And that will start the debate all over again. In short, i disagree on the deletion. - J.P.Talk 23:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how mentioning Jormag would start up a debate about having a page dedicated to Jormag on this wiki, since any mentionings of Jormag would be interwiki linked. -- Konig/talk 00:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion restart per new info

Thanks to Stephane and Jeff for clarifications per here. I've gone and recreated Drakkar for an article on the creature under the like. I'm still pro the deletion of this article due to the minor relevance not meriting an entire page when an interwiki link and the Drakkar article will suffice. -- Konig/talk 05:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the deletion of Jormag article, probably move Drakkar as done on GW2W (with the quotes), due to it being an unofficial name. Interwiki linking Jormag to GW2W and "Drakkar" from GW2W to GWW would be a great alternative. - Infinite - talk 13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

GW2W and GWW names its unofficial termed/fan-named articles differently, hence why I didn't put quotation marks in the article name. -- Konig/talk 21:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Then the curent solutions from both ends should suffice. Good thinking. :) - Infinite - talk 23:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lore Conflicts

I'm confused, if this Dragon was Jormag's champion, as The Shatterer is to the Crystal Dragon, then why does it say that The Nornbear was the first Jormag champion if this Dragon has been under the lake for centuries? -- Professor Shaft 19:45, 14 April 2011 (GMT)

We're all just as confused as you. Svanir's said in the Edge of Destiny book to be the first champion of Jormag. Likewise, there's only been cases of 1 champion at a time, which means this creature's dead by gw1's time, but Jormag's power is flowing from the lake and is stated in EoD that Jormag whispered into Svanir's head as they (Svanir and Jora) were over Jormag (or something of that sort). It's a retcon made by Anet that just doesn't make sense - all done most likely to make Jormag look more like a traditional fantasy dragon, which Anet said they wouldn't be doing in the Art of GW2 book. Just makes no sense... -- Konig/talk 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)