Talk:Razah

Archive

---

• /2007-2011

Origin / Human Template

I was looking over the details on how to get him, when I thought about something. We already have some strong connections to Factions in the whole Torment / Domain of Anguish section of The Mists. And it seems that any soul that gets affected by Abaddon or his minions winds up in there somewhere. What about Togo? He was personally killed by Shiro Tagachi. If that isn't a strong connection to Abaddon, I don't know what is. Then we have Razah, a creature of The Mists that needed a 'suitable human template'.

Togo's image from his profile pic, Razah's from his armor gallery, default armor. The center is a 50% opacity overlay of Razah over Togo. Outside of color changes, I flickered the layer off and on and could see no real change to the visible face. While it is a possibility that Razah IS Togo, I find it far more likely that he was just the template Razah used to take form. Any other ideas/input? Guildwarsrunner 05:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Togo's soul is actually in Tahnakai Temple, you can meet him there after you complete the 'Factions' storyline. On a side note, how long were you wandering around GWWiki to find that distant correlation? (O.o) Seems it would have taken a huge amount of time to find a connection like that... 68.144.77.185 05:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The most probable 'template' for Razah was Abaddon's original human body. It's clear from the plot that all human gods where human themselves once. And since Abaddon got most of his body destroyed when imprisoned, it wouldn't be strange for him to want another body to walk around humans like he did before. MithTalk 14:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"It's clear from the plot that all human gods where human themselves once." No it's not? Last time I checked humans don't have wings. And if it is, and I'm just missing something, please tell me where it's made "clear" that all of the human gods were once human - keep in mind that it was said that the gods predate humanity ("but not by much") - though that's even unclear if it meant humanity's existence or humanity on Tyria. Point being: nothing says that all gods were once human - Kormir certainly was; the rest go from "probably" to "could have been" with Dwayna and Melandru being, imo, least likely.

And your theory of Razah being intended for Abaddon to use seems strange, since he has a new body when we face him (or so we're led to believe that's a new body being formed). Konig/talk 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Appearance is not enough in this case. Most depictions of Melandru show those 'wings' as clothing or plant-like growths. Dwayna does seem to have wings in most depictions, but that still doesn't mean much. Murals and Statues are just artistic depictions, the Avatars are not themselves, and the Avatar forms and costumes are not reliable either. Gods have more of a 'theme' than a definite form. Having wings doesn't matter anyways, because getting powers of a divine domain changes you as seen with Kormir. When you get imbued with the power of air, you may grow wings. When you get imbued with the power of nature, you may get plant-like growths. When you get imbued with the power of knowledge, you may become golden, when you get imbued with the power of death, you get skeletal features, like a skull in your head, and so on. The personality of the one transformed has probably effects in the transformation too, and the transformation may go on indefinitely as the line between the individual and the powers and domains becomes blurry. As for Abaddon, no one ever said that he got a new body. All that we know is that he was defeated in a battle that had explosive effects, that we can see by the crater (and several other parts of the world and the mists) parts of himself and the effects of his power, and that he was imprisoned in a weakened state. That hints towards that being what's let of his body, distorted by his own power, not a new one. One must notice that gods are not exactly flesh, and so their bodies are not just a physical form, and that their own power affects their physical manifestations and even the environment as when not controlled or sealed properly. Abaddon was clearly mingling with his real and reality itself. The most important clue towards what Razah was, is the things said about him and that's he is found in "the very heart of the realm of torment". Even if he was not created from Abaddon's template, he being bound to that place by Abaddon's minons can only mean something related to Abaddon, most probably something that would benefit Abaddon. I'm partial towards Abaddon using him as a new body, knowing that what's left of his own won't last long. Evil gods are always finding ways to get new bodies to posses. MithTalk 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) 1) Statues of their actual forms exist, thus humans know what they actually look like. 2) Gods glow, and I fail to see how becoming golden is linked to knowledge (also, other than glowing, Kormir does not change). source on points 1 and 2.
3) Nothing in game states Abaddon growing a new body, but gw.dat does. Yes I know it's not confirmed. GWO is being a pain with its search functions so I couldn't find the thread which had the descriptions. Ignoring this, we see Abaddon's glove and mask in Ruins of Morah - while the mask can be explained, I doubt a glove of that design would fall of mid-battle unless an arm's missing (and he has two).
4) "One must notice that gods are not exactly flesh, and so their bodies are not just a physical form, and that their own power affects their physical manifestations" Source? We never see anything to indicate this (other than Abaddon being a disembodied head and hands).
5) In all of this you failed to show how it's "clear" that every god were once humans like you claimed, how Abaddon's body was failing, or that the template could not be any of the hundreds of human souls trapped in the Realm of Torment (let alone elsewhere in the Mists - nothing indicates that the original template has to be nearby, just in contact with the Mists). While I agree that Razah was kept there for some purpose related to Abaddon, I see absolutely nothing to indicate it was for possessing. Konig/talk 16:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Death Penalty immunity?

My party got wiped during a VQ today, and unless a 19% morale boost suddenly became possible, Razah does not seem to suffer from DP. He still had 4% morale boost right after the wipe... Anyone else noticed this? It was noted on neither page nor talk page.

Did he have Death Pact Signet? Dying as a result of the target of your DPS being killed doesn't cause DP. -- Hong 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be the cause, I don't really remember, he does have it equipped, so I guess you're right :)--Spirit of the Bear 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

there was a bug a few years ago that sometimes one or two heroes got a fixed ammount of dp. dunno if it got fixed meanwhile. --Mystic Gohan 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing Prof Question

If I change his primary profession whitout removing the weapons and runes will I loose them forever or get them back once I switch his profession back? --MageMontu 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's the same as mercenary heroes - you get them back once you change professions back. Konig/talk 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

From the "Profession change" section: "When changing its prof, any profession-specific armor upgrades will be deleted from its armor. Weapons, off-hands and common armor upgrades will not be deleted. Razah will warn you it must cast aside the equipment of its old path." --Silver Edge 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't always happen. Testing demonstrates that the weapons are almost always kept, and 'common' runes and insignia that are not specific to any profession are kept too. But remove any upgrades and weapons just to be sure. It only costs a few salvage kit uses. MithTalk 00:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing Prof Question 2

Okay, so the article is like go to the Isle of the Nameless and change his profession! So I'm at the Isle of the Nameless and I'm concentrating real hard, but I can't change his profession. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14.200.25.94 (talk) at 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC).

And Razah is not in your party, right? --snograt 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

HOW EMBARASSING --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14.200.25.94 (talk) at 11:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

:D snograt 06:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hero default skills

I'm not seeing any hero default skills on Razah's skill bar when I change its primary profession for the first time. After changing its primary profession, Razah's skill bar is always empty, all 200 of its attribute points is unused, and no new weapon is received. So where does the hero default skills, attribute ranks, and weapon information come from? I changed its profession in Isle of the Nameless. --Silver Edge 09:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

first time after hero aquisition? I think it was get hero unlocked, go to IoTN before adding to party.. -Chieftain Alex 18:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, since I added Razah to my party immediately after acquiring it in the quest to verify its Ritualist attributes and then kicked it out of the party before going into Isle of the Nameless to change its profession. I can test what you said and determine if there are any default skills, attribute ranks, and weapons for Paragon or Dervish when I get around to completing Nightfall on my Mesmer. As for weapons, if it does acquire another default weapon, will it replace the Spawning Staff if it was equipped at the time of the profession change or is the second default weapon placed in your inventory? --Silver Edge 21:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

weapon for non-rit primary would replace the primary weapon I imagine... -Chieftain Alex 21:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

barrel hammer seems odd given the sword-based skillbar. -Chieftain Alex 21:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd. The Warrior skill bar and Barrel Hammer were both added to the page in the same edit though. --Silver Edge 21:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Warrior default attribute ranks supposedly doesn't have any rank in Strength, even though the skill bar supposedly has Power Attack on it and all the other currently listed professions have ranks in their primary attribute. The Warrior also doesn't follow the default attribute rank pattern of the other professions that have skills in three different attributes, i.e. three default attribute ranks set to 12, 11, and 6. --Silver Edge 05:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think this can be tested by using a PvP-only character on an account that has unlocked Razah.

1. Delete and recreate a PvP-only character if that PvP-only character has already added Razah to their party before.
2. Do not add Razah to your party and have the PvP-only character talk to Razah in the Isle of the Nameless to change its profession.
3. Map travel or go back through the portal to Great Temple of Balthazar.
4. Add Razah to your party for the first time on this PvP-only character to see if it has default skills, attribute ranks, and new weapon for the profession you chose.

If this works, this can be done to determine and verify default skills, attribute ranks, and weapons for all professions (including Paragon and Dervish, which are currently missing information) by rerolling a PvP-only character. I would test to see if this works, but I don't have a PvP-only character, don't have an empty character slot, and all of my character slots have level 20 PvE characters, so I don't want to delete one of my level 20 PvE characters to create a PvP-only character. --Silver Edge 05:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought that heroes used to be shared between PvP characters, at least the equipment did? (flakey source) (e.g. I put junk shield 1 on Koss of PvP "char #1", delete the PvP "char 1", create PvP "char 2"... pvp char2's koss has the same weapon originally placed on char1's hero. Creating another pvp char ("char 3") + removing the weapon would mean that char2's koss would no longer have the weapon..

thus your suggested sequence might, unless you've never had a pvp char before, not work. -Chieftain Alex 07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I can test if equipment is shared between heroes of PvP-only characters, since I have a Factions-only account with PvP-only characters. I just need to get 7,777 Balthazar faction to unlock Keiran Thackeray on that account. --Silver Edge 08:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tested. Yes, heroes with their weapons, insignias, runes, and skill bar are shared between PvP characters as you described. So the Razah test that I mentioned above can only be performed once per account for PvP-only characters. --Silver Edge 10:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a fresh Razah, with the profession switched to warrior before adding him to the party: https://i.imgur.com/X55aE9b.jpg FYI, I cropped out the rest of my screen and erased the character name in GIMP and exported it into a 100% quality jpg. I'm not sure how to update the main article with this information, simply remove the verification requested tags where applicable? 84.236.122.127 09:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's about it. Correcting any incorrect/missing information and then removing tags if everything is written up is the way forward. - Infinite - talk 10:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the default bars, if you switch profession before use on a new character, are just copies of the hero skills for Koss / Dunkoro etc.

Similarly the weapons look like they are taken from the other starter hero equipment (just in the case of warrior, Razah ends up with Koss's build and Goren's hammer). -Chieftain Alex 12:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Unlocking skills

Does anyone know how Razah's profession changing mechanic interacts with unlocking skills? Say you've never unlocked any ranger skills on your account, would unlocking Razah unlock its default ranger build? Would it only unlock once Razah is changed to a ranger? Or would it even require that you change Razah to a ranger before adding it to your party for the first time? - Alexis Toran (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Tested it myself. It turns out that it's possible for a hero to have skills on its bar without unlocking them for the account. - Alexis Toran (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts

An example of a fact is "Razah will transfer disease to or from other human party members"

An example of baseless speculation is "Razah has no gender"

Facts should be on this wiki. Baseless speculation should not. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 51.9.122.154 (talk) at 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

Agreed with facts vs. speculation.

If you look at The Guild Wars Nightfall Manuscripts (which is cited at the top of Razah's wiki page), you can see that Razah is addressed as "it", contrary to all other heroes, which are addresed with s/he, depending on gender. Also, the text you get when you unlock Razah (screenshot also provided on Razah's page) also addressed Razah with "it".

Since you disagree with "Although its species is unknown", which species would you say it is? Demonic protomatter? It doesn't seem to be Demon, since it doesn't spread Desease to Demons. Steve1 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I always took it to being a "sentient entity" of a humanoid. Tikka LeFem talk (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Even pets in real life can be referred to as "it", that doesn't mean my dog has no gender. Razah very clearly uses a male model, and in the lore he's clearly modeled after humans. The "it" refers to him being an unknown entity. This isn't GW2, let's not push this ambiguous gender bs here. I'm sure 2007 Anet wouldn't either. --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, it's using a male model. You're arguing with your dog or any pet? That's the kind of BS you mentioned yourself. 29 heroes, 28 of those are refered to with s/he and you argue with pets. An noone was arguing with "this ambiguous gender bs", you created that strawman BS yourself.

EDIT: And why 'exactly'? You noticed that TikkaLeFem was the one who reverted you? I assume those two IPs were you? Steve1 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody "reverted me" because those aren't my edits. I just wanted to chime in on the discussion here. --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

i find it hilarious that just like with veilguard and older dragon age people are insisting yet another progressive mid 00s company wasnt progressive at the time

come on the main cast of each expansion is quite on par to what modern conservatives would shout to be dei characters

evennia kehanni kormir jora gwen langmar and yeah razah too and whos the villains but old possibly conservative men with selfdestructive tendencies each time adelbern khilbron shiro abaddon burntsoul duncan dhuum

come on take off those rose tinted glasses just because the goalpost of progressiveness moved doesnt mean 2007 anet werent progressives and wouldnt make a genderless nonhuman character or two--Senti (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

just pointing out, but cba to find the one, isn't there a female boss that uses the male model or their quest says they are another gender? Durp da durp (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe so, but right off hand do not recall whom that was/is, Durp da durp. Ok, yes I reverted, but realize now it may have been a 'dupe' statement. As to the He / She / It and no, I am not going to toss in the 'DEI' bullshit; The Guild Wars Nightfall Manuscripts even says "...Razah is a contradiction: more than human in some ways, and less than human in others."

EDIT: Just because it appears to be a 'dude' talks like a 'dude', walks like a 'dude' at the close of the day, the fact remains, Razah is a unique humanoid creation. Tikka LeFem talk (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a few instances like that where they messed up the model or the name, but claiming this was somehow intentional and ideologically driven in 2007 is revisionist nonsense. --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Senti I find it really funny how you try pulling an "Anet's always been like this" in a topic literally titled "Let's stick to the facts", when it's the biggest lie you could tell. You trying to bring the whole "men bad woman good" thing into this is also hilarious because you're basically admitting that modern ""progressives"" (the word means nothing now btw) just hate half the population, and a game being biased against men is a good indicator of being ""progressive"". But to address your points: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, having female protagonists doesn't make something a "DEI" or progressive game, that's a strawman argument, and there's a bit of both on every side in GW1. You're bringing up Abaddon but forget to mention how Varesh and Kahyet were his biggest followers, and Varesh was the main antagonist for most of NF. Or Adelbern, who isn't even an antagonist, and whose main "opposition" is his son, so it's men on both sides of the conflict. "Self-destructive tendencies" is an insane stretch. I get it, you hate men, so does your precious new Anet, but new Anet has nothing to do with GW1. New Anet even censors old GW2 content at times, that's how far gone they are. --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

(For the record, Josephine in Gates of Kryta) — snograt 10:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"having female protagonists doesn't make something a "DEI" or progressive game, that's a strawman argument,"

funny enough thats one of the main thing people complaining about dei in gw2 say with for example the elder dragons genders and eod protagonists and antagonists where joon is good and li is bad etc etc and as you say this isnt gw2 but i was just using the antigw2 argument against gw1 too and its the same exact situation

so you see how silly the argument your making about razahs gender actually is when anet themselves were always gender neutral about them they just use it instead of them because it was 2007 and the norm of using them for nonbinary people wasnt the standard english direction yet

on an aside being anti patriarchy isnt the same as anti male so gg on not understanding what progressive movement actually is or focusing solely on the extreme negatives of it but thats kind of besides the point--Senti (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Please consider using punctuation marks such as , and . instead of ragetyping, people will take you more seriously. As I've said, you don't understand the other side. But how could you? Unironically using words like "patriarchy" indicate that you're a man-hating radical who lives in an echochamber. Besides you've already established earlier that portraying women in a positive light and men in a negative one is what makes things progressive, so it's too late to backtrack now. --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We have the note about Razah being mechanically a human (re: Disease transfer) in the notes section, which is where it should belong due to it being a game mechanic. As for Razah's gender, that should be placed into the Trivia section, perhaps phrased as: "It is likely that Razah has no gender, as ArenaNet has avoided using 'she' or 'he' in preference of using 'it' when referring to the character." Greener (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it all comes down to what's the focus of the phrasing. You have to approach this from a 2007 POV not a 2024 one. Razah's probably an "it" because the emphasis is on him being a creature rather than a person. For all intents and purposes he seems human, but he was artificially created. That doesn't mean he wasn't created with a male template or has no gender. If Anet wanted to focus on gender ambiguity they would've used "they" instead of "it", but the focus is on his origins because that's what matters. GW1 Anet was trying to make an interesting world full of mystery, and this fits right into that. GW2 Anet has.. other priorities. But we're not on the GW2 wiki. --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

M.O.X. is another companion, clearly a golem (a machine), yet in-game info refers to him as 'he' and 'his'. So ANet knows how to differentiate. Just a little snippet of a fact. Steve1 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@RazahEnjoyer: I'll be honest, I don't understand what you mean by 2007 vs 2024, or most of the other things that you and everyone else has been discussing. I'm just talking about the character, and how Anet seems to have avoided saying any specific gender when referring to Razah. As Steve pointed out, a golem was given a clear gender, but Razah wasn't. Greener (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is, there are 2 lines of thought. One says that Razah's referred to as "it" because the writers wanted to emphasize his otherworldly nature and the fact that he wasn't born like a regular human. Gender has nothing to do with that. The other is the modern take pushed by the likes of Senti, according to which Razah has no gender because Anet wanted to push gender ideology into the game as early as 2007, hence they started using pronouns other than he/she for people (ignoring how Razah's not even being categorized as "people"). I'm simply making a case for the first one - Razah's called an "it" in order to highlight his supernatural origins. Steve1 brings up MOX but MOX was added later (quite possibly by a different team), and small inconsistencies like that exist all over the game. It's also possible that Anet simply didn't feel the need to make a point with calling MOX an "it" since you can tell at a glance that he's a construct, but for Razah using "it" was necessary to differentiate him more clearly from regular humans. Besides MOX on the GW2 wiki is also "it". I think calling MOX and Razah "him" and "it" are both fine, but in technical terms both are "it". Depends on the context and how much you recognize them as people instead of mere tools. Razah's both an "it" (mist entity) and "him" as he's clearly modeled after a human male by his creator, as stated in the manuscript (suitable human template). For the record I'm not against wording it like "Razah resembles a human male in appearance" - you don't have to make a definitive "He's a human male" statement. I'm just opposing the definitive wording on Razah having no gender like it was a fact, and the claim that Anet at the time thought his gender was more important than his Mists origins (when the very first line in the manuscript mentions the Mists too). And I think the original poster was trying to make a similar point. --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Some more facts if you don't mind:

The comment about not having a gender was added in 2007 (and not by Senti): https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Razah&diff=next&oldid=68166

Therefore, calling it "revisionist nonsense" is revisionist nonsense itself since it clearly was approached "from a 2007 POV not a 2024 one". (both quotes by RE)

The GW2wiki chronicles GW2. This wiki only the original GW. Things that happen in GW2 aren't noted here (with some very few very tender exceptions). So what folks do on the gw2wiki means not particularly much here. I skimmed over the MOX article on gw2w and canNOT find any ANet input regarding he vs. it. So I don't know why the editors over there chose "it". But in GW, ANet chose he and his in official material (their own homepage and the unlock text). [If you can show some ANet input calling Mox "it" in GW2 I'm happy to learn, so feel free to point it out!]

"I'm just opposing the definitive wording on Razah having no gender like it was a fact" oh, I agree with you here and also see both lines of thought (minus your wrong accusation of it being a 2024 thing). What I was opposing was with IP calling one side a baseless speculation twice - while it's speculation, it doesn't seem to be baseless (to me). And by how you, RE, are twisting things to drive your own agenda and wrongfully turning it into a 2024 vs 2007 debate and accusing others (Senti) of doing this exact same thing (or your pet argument).

snark attack: "but MOX was added later (quite possibly by a different team)" while the former is factually correct, the latter is ... dare I say it ... "baseless speculation". ;)

Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I do in fact mind it a little bit, because I don't like arguing with people for the sake of arguing. You're admittedly not even against what I'm saying, yet you keep nitpicking on the phrasing of every sentence I type.

I'm well aware that the original edit is from 2007 and I fully believe that whoever added it just wanted to be helpful. I'm also convinced that the most fierce supporters who want it added back in 2024 do it because they want to push a certain narrative (like Senti). That's because this topic wasn't at all politically charged back then, but it is now, and that IS a fact. I'd like to be objective here and not give in to the agendapushers. The "Anet's always been like this" thing irritates me to no end. That's just gaslighting. Go read up on their Glassdoor page if you want to see how this company changed for the worse, it's well documented by their own employees. But back to the topic..

Yes, the "quite possibly by a different team" part is pure speculation on my end, I was trying to bring up possible reasons for inconsistencies. I thought the "quite possibly" and the () part made that clear, and I brought up the GW2 wiki entry because even within the character you've mentioned there's seemingly no consistency (albeit between games). --RazahEnjoyer (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about any (in)consistency regarding MOX. I don't play gw2 and I couldn't find any ANet info on his gw2w page. I was serious about "If you can show some ANet input calling Mox "it" in GW2 I'm happy to learn, so feel free to point it out!" this. The gw2w editors' decision to use "it" instead of gw's "he" doesn't really count in my book since there is no real basis for it as far as I can tell from a quick glance. That's why I was citing those ANet sources reg. MOX in gw. That was ANet, not us editors.

Thanks for GLassdoor, wasn'T aware of that page.

(you did see my wink smiley at the end of my snark attack?!) Steve1 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

PS: I was/am against SOME of the stuff you wrote, and I'm fine with SOME of it. Please no overgeneralizations. ;-P

PPS: "yet you keep nitpicking on the phrasing of every sentence I type." Every?! Evil me! ;-P

I'll be honest, a lot of this section reads as people trying to take a minor, simple aspect of this game and massively overcomplicating it. The rest appears to be a lot of talking past each other with issues over semantics. I appreciate every attempt to speak with clarity and understanding that you've all made.

In the couple of moments that Anet could have said 'he' or 'she', they used the word 'it'. From where we stand, Razah has no known gender. As to the use of the male human frame, to the best of our knowledge a developer may have just flipped a coin.

Since my previous suggestion garnered no response, perhaps the phrase, "Despite using a human male model, Razah has no known gender, as the word 'it' is used rather than 'she' or 'he' when referring to the character." Greener (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Response: "It is likely that Razah has no gender, as ArenaNet has avoided using 'she' or 'he' in preference of using 'it' when referring to the character." - fine with me. Or if folks want, change "likely" to "possible".

"Despite using a human male model, Razah has no known gender, as the word 'it' is used rather than 'she' or 'he' when referring to the character." - can live with that. Or change "has" to "might have". I'd prefer your first suggestion with "possible".

Keep gender trivia removed: Also fine by me. Steve1 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)