Guild Wars 2

Neilos Tyrhanos.5427:

I did have a bit of a problem with the Norn quest in Wayfarer Foothills that has you raiding a Dredge mine and killing the workers. Not just the soldiers, the workers too— the ones who spawn unaggressive.

So much this. I feel so kitten guilty when I accidentally aggro a drudge worker when going through their mines.

dybryd.1358:

You also murder Inquest Recruiters as a lowbie asura…

To be fair, this is another situation where the other party turns hostile first and you aren’t left with a choice besides fighting or running if you choose to interact with them at all.

The sequence of events is actually that the PC confronts them in a forceful tone but without violence, then gets attacked.

Also, this yet another heart you can complete without bothering with the Recruiters at all, since there are several other objectives.

Blueshield.6291:

I still hold that the OP approached the whole scenario with faulty logic – separatists aren’t ever portrayed as civilian political dissidents, they’re consistently portrayed as criminals conducting terror attacks and attempting assassinations.

That portrayal is part of his point. This is how all dissidents are portrayed, until they win. Then they become revolutionaries/freedom fighters/minutemen instead of rebels/terrorists/guerrillas. Note that the Order of Whispers uses the same kind of tactics that a separatist would use.

The objective of these quests is to hunt people down and confront them, up to and including killing them without due process in their homes, and this is basically treated in as casual a manner as one might be asked to pick up 10 wildflowers. Regardless of whether you believe the action to be justified, the way the game treats it is crass and unsophisticated. Yes it’s just a video game, and saying that is missing the point, because the designers could have used this to add substance to the story, resulting in a better game overall. It’s a wasted opportunity along with the rest of the “personal storyline”. Here we see what they could have (and should have) done with that concept — e.g. your character chooses whether they want to side with the monarchy or with the separatists, after being put through a series of tough moral choices. But instead we get “my sister was killed by centaurs/I miss the circus”. How disappointing.

Leablo.2651:

That portrayal is part of his point. This is how all dissidents are portrayed, until they win.

Yes, that Aung San Suu Kyi sure had a bloody reputation during the years of her house arrest.

Leablo.2651:

That portrayal is part of his point. This is how all dissidents are portrayed, until they win. Then they become revolutionaries/freedom fighters/minutemen instead of rebels/terrorists/guerrillas.

You’re talking about propaganda and public image, though… whereas in GW2 your character is viewing the group’s actions firsthand. You aren’t just reading in the newspaper that the Separatists tried to blow up a Charr village – you’re actually standing right there while they plant the bomb and listening to them gloat about it.

GW2 isn’t “portraying” some external group; since the groups are fictional, what we see in the game is their objective reality, because your character is actually there in person witnessing events as they unfold.

I understand that people take offense to different things and so on but really? Can you really say that clicking on a “suspicious door” to start a fight in a video game is morally wrong? If there was a cut scene depicting a Separatist being ripped from their house with little Timmy watching you beat him down then you got something to post about. There isn’t, you click on a door. I mean really, should we call PETA because you get a title for slaying 1000 bunnies? I think not! I’m not trying to be mean or whatever but this is really stretching it.

Also, I’m pretty sure it’s not homes you’re knocking on the doors of to find the Separatists. If you actually look at the rooms they’re in, it’s more like a meeting place or public area than where somebody would live.

Toxyn.9608:

Devious Quaggan…part of me wants to see this, even if it is just in an event chain. Dr. Evool……lol.

Quaggan is gonna foo you up! Defying Quaggan was a stoopid mistake!

Leablo.2651:

Levetty.1279:

Rustypipes.6238:

Rolled a Charr Necro, complains about human violence and evil.

Best post of the thread.

What, judging someone based on their race and job?

The charr race was forged in the merciless crucible of war. It is all they know. War defines them, and their quest for dominion drives them ever onward. The weakling and the fool have no place among the charr. Victory is all that matters, and it must be achieved by any means and at any cost.

Necromancers are masters of the dark arts. They summon the dead to fight for them, channel blood energy and rend their enemies’ souls. Necromancers draw on life force and use it to strengthen or heal themselves and others.

Yes, “judging” them on their race and “job” (profession).

Leablo.2651:

Blueshield.6291:

I still hold that the OP approached the whole scenario with faulty logic – separatists aren’t ever portrayed as civilian political dissidents, they’re consistently portrayed as criminals conducting terror attacks and attempting assassinations.

That portrayal is part of his point. This is how all dissidents are portrayed, until they win. Then they become revolutionaries/freedom fighters/minutemen instead of rebels/terrorists/guerrillas. Note that the Order of Whispers uses the same kind of tactics that a separatist would use.

When I use the word “portrayal,” I am referring to how the game designers portray the separatists, because this is a work of fiction. From an in-universe standpoint, the separatists are self-representing as terrorists and mass-murders – you don’t receive this information through Krytan propaganda, you witness it firsthand in various human storylines, renown hearts, and the Caudecus’s Manor storyline.

Note that this is differentiated from some (certainly not all) dissident groups who win and retroactively become revolutionaries or freedom fighters. The wholesale slaughter of vast amounts of innocent non-combatants is not the norm for would-be revolutionaries, as it tends to turn popular opinion against you.

Finally, I’m not aware of any in-universe precedent for the Order of Whispers sanctioning mass-murders and bombings of densely inhabited areas, though I believe I recall possible references to assassination. They’re certainly portrayed as Machiavellian, so that may be a fair point. I don’t see the relevance, though, insofar as determining whether missions in which separatists are killed constitutes a political agenda.

I agree with the original post. There’s so many mobs in the game that disturb me, make me sad when they die. Humans, bears, wolves.. There’s even bears in the high level zones.. I don’t feel bad after killing trolls, orcs, goblins, drakes… dragons..

There’s even young bear cubs that can be killed. Hatchlings… seriously so messed up, now I’m killing BABY bears and the way wolves cry when you hit them is terribly sad.

Grizledorf.5290:

I agree with the original post. There’s so many mobs in the game that disturb me, make me sad when they die. Humans, bears, wolves.. There’s even bears in the high level zones.. I don’t feel bad after killing trolls, orcs, goblins, drakes… dragons..

There’s even young bear cubs that can be killed. Hatchlings… seriously so messed up, now I’m killing BABY bears and the way wolves cry when you hit them is terribly sad.

The Wolves, Bears and Babies all attack you first. The Humans you kill are terriosts or Bandits. You are saving lives by killing them.

There are baby bears in a cave in Queensdale that attack you simply because you kill their mother to get to a rich node- I left the node and ran when that happend

Dudeface.8102:

Ebonehawke is a large human town tucked into the southwest corner of Fields of Ruin. Like many human settlements it has a “Separatist problem”.

Sounds like when the the Nazis had a ‘jewish problem’ to me.

Maybe you should lay off the history channel for a bit. The language you use is conflating reality and fantasy.

Dudeface.8102:

Everybody knows that freedoms are evaporating all around the civilized worlds in favor of more government.

No, what you see as lack of freedom by way of big governament might just be banking regualtions and consumer protections. Things that are needed to stop banking ‘oopsies’ that blow up the economy.

…And the world is actually more free then its been since the 1970’s.

http://chartsbin.com/view/61p

You’re reading way too much into this. Turn off Fox News or whatever Rupert Murdoch publication you might be reading and repeat the phrase: ‘Its just a game, it’s just a game.’ a few times and breath.

…Oh, and just in case. Queen Jennah is NOT a secret muslim.

Dudeface.8102:

Everybody knows that freedoms are evaporating all around the civilized worlds in favor of more government.

You are mixing up two things. First, more government does not mean less freedom. A democratic government is controlled by the people. So as long as every representative in a republic (which is just a particular form of democracy) is accountable to the people in regular and fair elections, even the biggest government won’t curtail freedoms.

As long as government doesn’t become authoritarian, freedom is not limited. While my country, Belgium, has one of the biggest governments in the world with over 200 secretaries of states, 6 prime ministers and a king, I never really felt less free because of it.

You clearly didnt do the event where the separatists run amok in ebonhawk killing inocent merchants and civilians. Like any other criminal i say kill em all. Payback is a kitten

This Thread makes you wonder how much and how often Stephen King has gotten flack over his ideas in the realm of entertainment.

I like Orr. Nothing moralisticly doubtfull there. Everything running around in this area is dead anyways, no reasons to bother wether you should feel bad about doing what you are doing or not.

As for the rest of the world – hm there are several things which make me close my eyes and say “it’s just pixels”.^^

Considering zhaitan gets his corpses, not only from orr but from other places as well.. what if you met someone you once knew? Would it feel good striking them down?

Yes because it’s dead. I’m putting him/her to rest I’m not killing him/her in the first place.

I am also a person who probably get way too bogged down with details, role playing and reads way too much into the back stories in games. However Why only sympathize with the humans? There are plenty of ogre’s trolls and spiders, among other things, that are going about their daily social lives with other members of their species and we (the player) just casually march through their caves and dens and slaughter them all.
I feel considerably more offended by this than I do about killing Separatists because the Separatists are actively being destructive to the rest of the human species. The spiders however… are not, they are minding their own business.

I have to really grab myself by the scruff of the neck and shake myself occasionally due to my tenancy to look way too deep into things. I remind myself it’s just a game, these aren’t real spiders/ogres/grawl/people. They are pixels. I really understand what you’re saying, but you have three options so you can pick the two that don’t make you feel uncomfortable. And you can remind yourself that it’s ok, because you aren’t actually hurting anyone.

You’re absolutely right! Those poor, poor Seperatists!

Oh, well, except for how they will attack any Charr-Loving member of ANY race ON SIGHT.

Forget everything political for a moment and dwell on that one point. They are willing to KILL anybody who approves of the Charr, even the Asura, Norn, and Sylvari that have absolutely nothing to do with the past War.

And you say it was like dragging them out of their homes and murdering them on the streets? I hope that’s how it was intended, because that’s how I pictured it.

What a good thread, it seems that it really does have people thinking and questioning a bit, that is good. I tend to agree that the Separatists aren’t the freedom loving type, more like the post civil war southern KKK who refused to accept blacks. I would agree with the OP if the situation was Human War Machine vs peaceful freedom lovers against war! but it isn’t. Although I would love someone who thinks video games make people more violent to come read these posts, where some posters have expressed sympathy and resignation toward doing quest related violence to the pixels which they felt were “innocent”.

Blackwolfe.5649:

Considering zhaitan gets his corpses, not only from orr but from other places as well.. what if you met someone you once knew? Would it feel good striking them down?

There’s actually an NPC in Malchor’s Leap who brings that up. She’s a member of the Priory, I believe, and she talks about how her ancestors were farmers in the area. She spends time wondering if she’ll have trouble cutting down Risen who used to be her family, but says that if they attack her outright she’ll have no trouble with it, because family wouldn’t do that.

Blackwolfe.5649:

Considering zhaitan gets his corpses, not only from orr but from other places as well.. what if you met someone you once knew? Would it feel good striking them down?

I imagine it feels horrible.

I would imagine it feels worse, though, to know that your loved one is trapped as a rotting minion to a hostile force, probably suffering greatly in the process, and without even the benefit of a natural death to relieve their pain.

There’s no other way to free them. It’s not meant to be a good, nice, happy thing. It’s actually pretty horrific. Our characters have to be strong enough to do what is necessary, though, and not let people suffer needlessly because ending it is difficult on our feelings.

OP, that’s seperatist talk. Be careful. Be very careful.

Anakita Snakecharm.4360:

Dudeface.8102:

There is a major exception to this fun however, and it happened when facing one of the main human enemies, called separatists. The separatists are a rowdy bunch generally opposed to peace and the human monarchy. The separatists constantly hatch plans to foil the human government and subvert the established authority.

I think you’re misunderstanding who the Separatists are – which is an understandable mistake because their name is rather misleading. It’s not simply a difference of political opinion; that would be Separatist sympathizers (whom you merely talk to,) not the Separatists themselves.

The Separatists are essentially a militia who act outside of government authority to commit acts of terrorism, murder, and sabotage in an attempt to prevent the end of a war that has claimed countless lives on both sides for centuries. Being “separate” by their standards means driving all the Charr off the land by the use of violent force.

They’re opposed to the human government only to the extent that Queen Jennah is trying to end the war; as far as I know they have no other major beef with the monarchy aside from not accepting the treaty or land-sharing arrangements.

We aren’t talking about ordinary nonviolent political anarchists here – we’re talking about an armed, aggressive group with a specific goal that would harm both species.

Also, regarding the “dragging them out of their homes” thing – try just knocking on the door and standing there. That’s what I did. They will become hostile and will attack you first.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Issues like this can’t be characterized along absolutist lines.

For instance, what Adelbern did wasn’t monstrous. It was desperate and sad and admirable all at the same time. His people were getting exterminated by an evil they couldn’t stop. I’d imagine the Ascalonians of GW1 would have gladly gone along with it if they thought they had no way out, GW2 in-game npc convo’s notwithstanding.

Or take the American Revolution. A minority of British transplants taking up arms against their own king and country over mostly economic issues(money) and some enlightenment ideals sprinkled in. It took a heck of a lot of convincing to get the majority of colonists onboard, and I’m sure they were viewed as “traitors” or “separatists” by the crown.

Is there anyone in the U.S. today who thinks the revolution was a bad idea? Or that it unfairly brutally victimized peaceful civilians in the conflict? Heck no, we earned our sovereignty and we’d do it a hundred times over again given the opportunity, despite the loss of life and peace.

At least that’s what I would do.

Morrigan.2809:

There are baby bears in a cave in Queensdale that attack you simply because you kill their mother to get to a rich node- I left the node and ran when that happend

I know the place you mean. When I first visited there I had no idea the cubs were in the cave. I was just heading there because I saw the Rich Copper Node icon on the map, and got attacked by a Veteran Bear. OK, fair enough. I defend myself, slay the Bear, and head into the cave… And then promptly get attacked by the baby bears. I couldn’t bring myself to cut them down too, so I just let them attack me while I harvested the node, then ran off.

The worst part of it all is that YOU’RE in the wrong here. The mother bear was just defending her territory or more likely, her baby cubs, and the player comes in and slaughters them all just to get the ore inside.

Obsidian.1328:

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Issues like this can’t be characterized along absolutist lines.

[…]

Or take the American Revolution. A minority of British transplants taking up arms against their own king and country over mostly economic issues(money) and some enlightenment ideals sprinkled in. It took a heck of a lot of convincing to get the majority of colonists onboard, and I’m sure they were viewed as “traitors” or “separatists” by the crown.

Is there anyone in the U.S. today who thinks the revolution was a bad idea? Or that it unfairly brutally victimized peaceful civilians in the conflict? Heck no, we earned our sovereignty and we’d do it a hundred times over again given the opportunity, despite the loss of life and peace.

At least that’s what I would do.

That’s an inaccurate parallel. Here’s why.

The vast majority of British targets in the American Revolution were uniformed combatants. Attacks on British civilians simply weren’t viable as an overall strategy due to the fact that an ocean separated the two warring groups. I’m not trying to indicate that no loyalists were killed by revolutionaries, I’m talking about overall strategic methodology.

In contrast, the separatists in GW2 deliberately use tactics that target and kill civilians. They only confront uniformed combatants (i.e., the Seraph) when it happens to be convenient or necessary to their goals.

While I’m not arguing specifically for an absolutist interpretation of revolutionaries in general, I’d also point out that generally the more successful revolutionaries have avoided civilian targets, when the civilians are members of the same national/ethnic/etc. group as the revolutionaries. Killing the people of the nation/polity you’re trying to gain political leverage in is a pretty ineffective way of engendering support.

In other words, discussions of real-life revolutions are somewhat irrelevant, because the separatists don’t act much like historical revolutionaries. The reason for their divergence from reality is specifically to cast them into clearly morally black territory.

Blueshield

Well yeah, their methods are poor I would agree. Attacking civilians is probably not the best way to win them over.

I was arguing more on their motivations, not methods. In my opinion, the Separatists have a good reason to believe the way they do, they are just going about it the wrong way.

I agree their actions are portrayed they way they are because ANet wanted to leave players little room for moral ambiguity. It’s a little insulting, as well as a little bit outside an mmo’s sphere of influence, to try and pull players’ moral compasses a certain way. If they choose to portray Separatists as one-dimensional and unerringly wrong, that’s their right I suppose. But that also means here that they presume a level of moral high-handedness. Because of that, I reserve the right question their methods and voice my opinions. It’s only fair.

Blueshield.6291:

That’s an inaccurate parallel. Here’s why…

Indeed, I agree. The American revolutionaries weren’t trying to eliminate the British. Prior to the revolution they were in fact British citizens themselves, and they were simply trying to secure political change, not to remove the whole British ethnicity from American shores. The conflict was over ideology, and all a British citizen would have to do to join the other side would be switch political/social beliefs.

The Separatists don’t just object to the politics of the Charr; they object to the Charr having a presence in Ascalon at all. To secure their goals, all the Charr have to be either dead or exiled from what has now been their claimed homeland for hundreds of years, and become refugees. That doesn’t leave any negotiating room, because no matter what an individual Charr believes or does, he or she will always be a Charr.

A revolution and a genocide are not the same thing. One can morph into the other going either direction, but I think it’s dangerous to just flat out equate them.

It’s not that humans don’t have a valid claim on Ascalon, or that anger over what the Charr have done is unjustified. I don’t think very many people who experienced the Searing would claim that the Separatists are just idiots whose grudge is completely unfounded.

What I’m saying is just that indiscriminate violence against the Charr in retaliation is not a morally justified response.

Toxyn.9608:

I really enjoy these conversations. The fact that a group of forums posters approached this political issue ingame with different viewpoints reflects the success of this storyline. Personally, I consider the Seperatists a major threat against the peace between Charr and Humans.

Laurelinde.4395:

Yes I don’t know why some people are being so dismissive. Some people are more affected by things in a game than others, and that’s ok. Personally, I didn’t enjoy playing Empire/Dark Side in SWTOR because it made me uncomfortable. I didn’t ask for it to be removed, or anything, nor do I think people who enjoy playing a Sith or Imperial are bad or immoral; it’s just not for me. I don’t see why looking at the implications of quests, or thinking critically, means that there is something wrong with OP or s/he needs to ‘stop playing’ or ‘take the blue pill.’

Thinking: give it a try!

Problem is, in Guild Wars 2, you barely have a choice. You can choose HOW you’re going to oppose Separatists, but you can’t choose NOT to. Your character is given certain views, and you have little to no say in them. A very peaceful friend of mine made a Charr (because they like fuzzy things), and it’s almost comical to see the stark contrast between their personalities. A person who isn’t even physically capable of glaring at someone, playing a character that routinely goes “LEMME AT ‘EM, I’LL SLAUGHTER THEM AAAAALL!”

As for me, I haven’t actually been to this particular point in the game, myself, but I dread it. The most prominent “screw my character, I’m not doing that” thing that I’ve dealt with was an event in the beginner Asura area in which you accompany a Krewe Leader to kidnap Skritt for experiments. Thankfully, unlike the Renown Hearts, specific events aren’t essential to completion of the game.

All of that said, I’m fully aware that it’s a game, and shouldn’t be taken too seriously… But I also know that “don’t take it too seriously” is exactly what lets the viewpoints offered by games and movies infiltrate the real beliefs that many people hold. It’s subtle, but it’s definitely there.

Also:

Obsidian.1328:

Is there anyone in the U.S. today who thinks the revolution was a bad idea? Or that it unfairly brutally victimized peaceful civilians in the conflict? Heck no, we earned our sovereignty and we’d do it a hundred times over again given the opportunity, despite the loss of life and peace.

Ha! I get into political arguments with people aaall the time… Trust me, there are quite a few people who think America was in the wrong for seeking independence. Same people who want to cast America back into dependence, now.

Weindrasi.3805:

In terms of taking down separatist propoganda—that propoganda states that the charr are monsters, and that they should be slaughtered without mercy. I don’t see anything wrong with removing propoganda meant to incite racial warfare….
As for murdering separatists in Ebonhawke, you just get them to come out of their houses. It’s THEY who attack you first.

Yeah, but it’s still a little harsh. Maybe I remember wrong but I think Anet changed alot of quests where you killed people before to just make them unconscious or hurting them. I think it should be the same with that separatist quest tbh. I don’t have a problem with killing monsters and animals in the same way as I have killing humans (or other intelligent races, even if they don’t exist IRL).

Half Tooth.1867:

There are plenty of ogre’s trolls and spiders, among other things, that are going about their daily social lives with other members of their species and we (the player) just casually march through their caves and dens and slaughter them all.

I feel considerably more offended by this than I do about killing Separatists because the Separatists are actively being destructive to the rest of the human species. The spiders however… are not, they are minding their own business.

And the spider/ogre/character that’s friendly or at the very least leaves me alone, I don’t attack.

Spiders, Ogres, and most things red tend to be hopelessly territorial though, and if it’s me or the spider welll… you know how that goes.

I don’t typically go out of my way to kill neutral mobs, unless it’s for food or they get caught in the crossfire and insist on pursuing me (as they so often do).

Oh well. OP might need to take a break. The separatists are terrorists.

How often do you knock on a door and the person that answers tries to shoot you in the face?

Yeah. Negotiation time is over.

Anakita Snakecharm.4360:

Blueshield.6291:

That’s an inaccurate parallel. Here’s why…

Indeed, I agree. The American revolutionaries weren’t trying to eliminate the British. Prior to the revolution they were in fact British citizens themselves, and they were simply trying to secure political change, not to remove the whole British ethnicity from American shores. The conflict was over ideology, and all a British citizen would have to do to join the other side would be switch political/social beliefs.

The Separatists don’t just object to the politics of the Charr; they object to the Charr having a presence in Ascalon at all. To secure their goals, all the Charr have to be either dead or exiled from what has now been their claimed homeland for hundreds of years, and become refugees. That doesn’t leave any negotiating room, because no matter what an individual Charr believes or does, he or she will always be a Charr.

A revolution and a genocide are not the same thing. One can morph into the other going either direction, but I think it’s dangerous to just flat out equate them.

It’s not that humans don’t have a valid claim on Ascalon, or that anger over what the Charr have done is unjustified. I don’t think very many people who experienced the Searing would claim that the Separatists are just idiots whose grudge is completely unfounded.

What I’m saying is just that indiscriminate violence against the Charr in retaliation is not a morally justified response.

I didn’t mean to say they were exact parallels, it was the spirit of the revolution that I was getting at. That willingness to die for one’s beliefs is what they have in common, not the reasons themselves. And the Charr are the ones who went for genocide, not the other way around. The humans initially wanted to be left alone, albeit on lands the Charr claimed from a millenia ago.

Additionally…

If your land and family were exterminated, and your people on the brink of extinction, and your conquerers suddenly stop and decide they are going to be civilized from now on…would you say “Oh super, sounds good,” or would you actually try and honor your ancestors sacrifices and memory by fighting back?

Peace in and of itself is not always the right thing to do, neither is choosing life over death. Sometimes fighting back is the only way to ensure your own humanity.

Obsidian.1328:

Anakita Snakecharm.4360:

Blueshield.6291:

That’s an inaccurate parallel. Here’s why…

Indeed, I agree. The American revolutionaries weren’t trying to eliminate the British. Prior to the revolution they were in fact British citizens themselves, and they were simply trying to secure political change, not to remove the whole British ethnicity from American shores. The conflict was over ideology, and all a British citizen would have to do to join the other side would be switch political/social beliefs.

The Separatists don’t just object to the politics of the Charr; they object to the Charr having a presence in Ascalon at all. To secure their goals, all the Charr have to be either dead or exiled from what has now been their claimed homeland for hundreds of years, and become refugees. That doesn’t leave any negotiating room, because no matter what an individual Charr believes or does, he or she will always be a Charr.

A revolution and a genocide are not the same thing. One can morph into the other going either direction, but I think it’s dangerous to just flat out equate them.

It’s not that humans don’t have a valid claim on Ascalon, or that anger over what the Charr have done is unjustified. I don’t think very many people who experienced the Searing would claim that the Separatists are just idiots whose grudge is completely unfounded.

What I’m saying is just that indiscriminate violence against the Charr in retaliation is not a morally justified response.

I didn’t mean to say they were exact parallels, it was the spirit of the revolution that I was getting at. That willingness to die for one’s beliefs is what they have in common, not the reasons themselves. And the Charr are the ones who went for genocide, not the other way around. The humans initially wanted to be left alone, albeit on lands the Charr claimed from a millenia ago.

Additionally…

If your land and family were exterminated, and your people on the brink of extinction, and your conquerers suddenly stop and decide they are going to be civilized from now on…would you say “Oh super, sounds good,” or would you actually try and honor your ancestors sacrifices and memory by fighting back?

Peace in and of itself is not always the right thing to do, neither is choosing life over death. Sometimes fighting back is the only way to ensure your own humanity.

Ascalon belonged to the Charr, humans invaded, kicked them out and called it their’s. The Flame Legion comes along while the other three are enslaved and oppressed, use the Searing and Adelbern goes off the deep end even further because he doesn’t want to lose his authority, causing the Foefire and condemning many innocent humans into an existence that just loops whenever they die and reform.

The separatists have no issues with pulling a Trojan Horse tactic on a town full of Charr where cubs are present, willing to kill every last one of them, it’s Nageling, check it out when the Giant isn’t assaulting it.

The problem isn’t political in the sense that we can relate to them normally, because the human god Balthazar guided humans to conquest Tyria, the other human gods were cool with this, aside maybe Abbadon.

I have a larger problem with the Skritt. Why is it that so many quests have me killing them for money or something, then a few meters away I’m helping them for money? I don’t understand. Am I really just out for the rewards? I like skritt.

Rhinzual.7861:

Ascalon belonged to the Charr, humans invaded, kicked them out and called it their’s.

Kittens happen. The humans that lived 1200 years earlier took Ascalon from the charr (who took it earlier). The humans that lived 250 years ago did not take Ascalon from the Charr. Likewise the Charr that unleashed the Searing 250 years ago are not the Charr of current game-time.
Humans taking their land 1200 years ago was no valid excuse for the genocide the Charr committed 250 years ago.

The Flame Legion comes along while the other three are enslaved and oppressed,

They were able and willing followers of their own believes, or more precise, their hunger for power. If any Charr were ever to believe they were ‘enslaved’ and ‘oppressed’ they should probably be banned for their weakness.

frans.8092:

Humans taking their land 1200 years ago was no valid excuse for the genocide the Charr committed 250 years ago.

Absolutely! Nor is the genocide that the Charr committed 250 years ago a valid excuse for wiping out the current generation of Charr. This is very true, and goes both ways.

That’s why in my opinion the treaty is the only possible solution, even if it doesn’t leave either side with warm fuzzy feelings.

Weindrasi.3805:

Toxyn.9608:

Devious Quaggan…part of me wants to see this, even if it is just in an event chain. Dr. Evool……lol.

Quaggan is gonna foo you up! Defying Quaggan was a stoopid mistake!

There are a couple Quaggans you fight. The ones in WvW if an opposing team controls their weather node you wind up fighting guards and villagers. The skill point one where the little Quaggan wants to express her anger in battle or whatever was so cute. I loooooove the Quaggans, it makes me so sad when I come across the undead ones or ice tainted ones

There are good and bad of pretty much all the critters. Some maps you might be fighting some “monsters” and in a different place you’re helping them.

Hey, now that you mention good and bad and risen, has anyone ever see any risen or icebrood centaurs?

Don’t think so :o

Kazhiel.8194:

Weindrasi.3805:

Toxyn.9608:

Devious Quaggan…part of me wants to see this, even if it is just in an event chain. Dr. Evool……lol.

Quaggan is gonna foo you up! Defying Quaggan was a stoopid mistake!

There are a couple Quaggans you fight. The ones in WvW if an opposing team controls their weather node you wind up fighting guards and villagers. The skill point one where the little Quaggan wants to express her anger in battle or whatever was so cute. I loooooove the Quaggans, it makes me so sad when I come across the undead ones or ice tainted ones

There are good and bad of pretty much all the critters. Some maps you might be fighting some “monsters” and in a different place you’re helping them.

I hate that skillpoint challenge because it’s underwater and the barracudas/sharks seem to be on a fast respawn timer coupled with both a large aggro radius and spawning nearby.

Dudeface.8102:

Everybody knows that freedoms are evaporating all around the civilized worlds in favor of more government.

This is in fact, false. Democracy around the world has generally been increasing, especially since the demise of the USSR, while authoritarian regimes are becoming less common.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Country%20Status%20%26%20Ratings%20Overview%2C%201973-2013.pdf

Freedom House has been evaluating the democratic status of countries since 1972. The number of free countries has more than doubled since then, while the number of “Not free” country has dropped by almost 50%.

Democracy does not automatically mean freedom though.

Far from it.

For some of you folks that really feel that killing them in the streets for their beliefs is precisely whats going on here, then here are some things to consider:

1. I play mostly charr. Now, the game’s AI does not take that into account. They will treat anyone who comes to the door equally. Charr, or no.

2. As an experiment to see just how far my reading into this could take, I knocked on a door and moved to the middle of the street and put my pet on non-attack mode. My intention was basically knock and run. I had no intention of killing the person exiting their home. They ran out to meet me anyway and began to beat on me. I now understand the plight of mail carriers who have to deal with large animals in order to do their job.

3. Its in self-defense. Attacking someone first because of their beliefs is not a peaceful demonstration but zealotry. Not all activists are peaceful, mindful, and careful about who they are feeling superior to. If they feel they are superior to their own government, then what is the limit to their moral objections? Noting they will openly and collectively engage in mass homicide and the bombing of their home city (which is SOOOO stupid. One should never bomb their own home, for kittens sake.) doesn’t make me feel any amount of pity for them. I’m not saying other people should, but let’s not fool ourselves.

4. Its a game. Pretty self-explanatory there.

Oglaf.1074:

Democracy does not automatically mean freedom though.

Far from it.

That is true, but both freedom and democracy have been increasing.

As many others have already pointed out, you’re simply reading too much into this.

Which is a shame, because I totally wanted to put on my stormtrooper uniform and go crush some rebel scum.

Rhinzual.7861:

The problem isn’t political in the sense that we can relate to them normally, because the human god Balthazar guided humans to conquest Tyria, the other human gods were cool with this, aside maybe Abbadon.

Melandru didn’t support it. She made the charr.

Either the humans did that of their own volition or the human gods are borderline schizophrenic.

Maybe it’s just Balthazar.

Then again, Dwayna’s pretty heartless for a deity that’s supposed to be the patron of mercy and monks.

Look up the history for a place called Malchor’s Leap. She could have rescued the man, or at the very least restored his sight before she left him.

Patron deity of healers. Come on now.

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Oglaf.1074:

Democracy does not automatically mean freedom though.

Far from it.

That is true, but both freedom and democracy have been increasing.

Blah, freedom isn’t like some abstract idea that can spread without any loss. Freedom is more like a resource. It has limited quantities. Your idea of increasing freedom is simply a dilution, or transference from those in power to those with less. When you remove a totalitarian from power and increase the freedom of his people, you took the freedom of the totalitarian to practice his totalitarianism over them. The costs of each of these freedoms are not the same though, for the totalitarian to have the freedom to enforce his totalitarianism, it costs his people their basic freedoms. Since more people are “free”, it seems like you increased freedom, but when in reality, you took an obscenely large amount of freedom from one, or a few, and gave a much more reasonable amount to everyone. Freedom is conserved, it is neither created, nor destroyed. You can’t increase freedom, or we’d all have the capability to be absolute rulers of everyone else, when in reality, only one can have that capability at a time.