Hmmm, either I'm not making myself clear enough, or people aren't understanding me properly. Maybe both.
I'm not trying to reinstate the trinity. If I was I would be advocating that Warriors should focus on Control and Rangers on Damage. I'm not doing that.
Let me try to make my point clear one last time. I don't care for damage. Damage is okay, as long as it is a side-effect from either control or support. The Guardian seems perfect for what I want to do. Everything I see and read about the Guardian is that he trades offensive power for group-wide benefits (except, of course, the Guardians that prefer to focus on Damage) and I'm just taking that to its logical extreme. It's not that I do not want to be able to do damage. Looking at the videos swords seem to be a decent damage dealing option, which is part of the reason I took it as my basic layout, to increase flexibility. The staff itself seems no slouch either in the damage department, and gives me an opportunity to fall back when needed and still be effective.
You also didn't seem to read my last sentence, where I said I'd be more than willing to swap to more offensive options when the group needed it.
@Maklor: You make it sound as if there is no room for individualization in a specific direction, either damage, control or support. Of course each player will have to push support, damage and control buttons, but there is room for specializing in one direction or another. You also have to look at general group composition and synergy.