Guild Wars 2

If Queen Jennah suddenly waged war against the Charr to reclaim Ascalon, would you resist or fight for the cause?

(and of course discuss on ‘why’)

Personally I would. Ever since the searing happened in GW1 I yearned for revenge but never really got it :/

I would too ! I want to take back the beautiful Ascalon and rebuild it, also Nolani and the Hill horn, and Surmia

And when all is free of the Charrs, I will build statues of our past heroes : Rurik, Devona, Aidan, … and of course the best of all… Alesia XD

Then I will settle South of Ascalon and became a red iris merchant !

PS : I’ve played a Charr and I liked it, I like their culture and so, …but they can continue their life in the North, Ascalon is ours !!!!
I will always remember the first time I saw the Searing, and I will have my revenge !

Why would I want a dessicated wasteland? Thanks, Adelbern. The Searing may not have the nicest or most logical thing to do, but the Foefire smacks of a total “Scorched Earth” policy.

I would gather my adventuring party and hunt down the obvious doppelganger clone (created by Scarlet?) who’s replaced Queen Jennah and is trying to goad the humans and Charr into war with each other.

tl;dr Only one of five human characters would support an Ascalon Reclamation War, and she’s the one I roleplay as being a member of a Villain Faction.

Melchior Caradoc, my Elementalist, has mostly Ascalonian ancestry, but his family fled to Kryta hundreds of years ago. My own ancestors mostly came to the United States from Northern Europe within the last century, and you don’t catch me pining for the fjords. Kryta is Melchior’s home. He would look at an Ascalon Reclamation movement objectively, decide there’s not anything he actually wants out of a span of ghost-ravaged ruins, and that Kryta doesn’t need another war when they’ve already got fierce fights on all sides against the Centaurs, the shockingly well-armed and organized Bandits, and the crazy tree lady who stole all the Queen’s magic robots. Oh, right and the Elder Dragons, against whom the Charr are invaluable allies. Yeah, not only would he not support an Ascalon Reclamation movement, he would press for legal sanctions against its supporters, including treason charges where absolutely necessary. If the Queen herself proposed this, he’d press for her to be dethroned through legal channels. If that didn’t succeed, he’d transfer as much of his property as possible to Lion’s Arch before publicly renouncing his Krytan citizenship. He would dedicate his considerable wealth to assisting the relocation of the massive wave of refugees, and be ready with a big grumpy “I Told You So” when the Centaurs march the streets of Divinity’s Reach. At some point, he would start to wonder about the sudden policy reversal on the part of the Queen, but by then it would be too late for him to dig deeper into whatever conspiracy was at root.

Lunaticia, my Mesmer, is a Canthan orphan raised by Order of Whispers operatives. Ascalon means less than nothing to her. She considers it only slightly less inhospitable than Orr, and is totally OK letting the Charr have the whole haunted mess. Especially since she takes a long view towards History and agrees that the Charr were there before any other recorded residents. She is not a citizen of Kryta. As one of the Order’s most accomplished Mesmers, she’d probably be called on to consult on strategy if a move against Queen Jennah (and Countess Anise) were determined necessary, and would willingly put her hand to the Order’s knife if they determined she was best for the job. Heck, she’d assassinate any of the reigning monarchs of the Pact nations with no reason at all given, if the Order told her to.

Alastor Malich, my Thief, comes from Krytan stock, and thus has an even more tenuous connection to Ascalon than Melchior. Alastor is a senior Order of Whispers Lightbringer and a vicious pragmatist. If he weren’t so busy slicing Dragon Minions into smaller chunks, he’d respond to anyone trying to hijack resources from the War and further divide Tyria’s defenders against each other by cutting their throat under cover of darkness. When he has free time, he already spends it snooping around trying to figure out how to do just that to Minister Cadecus.

Mallory Leblanc, my Ranger, is totally Krytan, no ties to Ascalon to speak of, but she’s also a White Mantle operative. Ideologically, she’d be all in favor of wiping out the Charr and taking Ascalon over. But she’d admit that it’s not super feasible given how much Kryta already has on its plate. If the Queen gave the order to invade Ascalon… she’d immediately assume that a White Mantle operative had gained control of the Queen, or outright replaced her, and she’d return to her handler for new orders. Thus, she’s the only “cooperate, possibly” entry on this list, depending on what the White Mantle thinks of the Queen’s plans.

Eden Donovan, my Warrior, is from Ebonhawke, and if you’d asked her two years ago she’d have lead the charge herself to slaughter every last Charr and tear down their cities. But she’s seen some crazy things since then, and broadened her horizons a bit. When she joined The Vigil, she was effectively cut off from her Separatist-sympathizing family. She’d probably struggle with it, but I think her loyalty to General Soulkeeper would win out, and she’d redouble her efforts on the Vigil’s behalf.

I think it would be less costly to just deal with the treaty and get along with the massive cat people.

Carth Blair my Human Guardian lived in the Shiverpeaks more than anywhere else in his life. Though his heritage was Ascalonian, it has been far too long since he has seen those lands. As such, he has no real nostalgia to it, but the one who started his family line (my GW1 warrior) would have approved to retaking the old lands.

Dancing Joker my Human thief is more Krytan and was raised culturally Canthan to some degree. His hatred is focused more on the Centaurs at the moment since they pose a threat to Divinity’s Reach. If the Queen ordered it, he would assist however he could, but there’s no real emotion to it. He would just follow orders.

My non human characters would range from “I’ll help the humans, it might be fun” to “I’ll skin the humans for taking my lands.”

I would have preferred a more realistic ending to Ascalon other than: Yet another Charr horde miraculously spawns and wipes out everything but Ascalon City(seriously, how many spare hordes did they have up there?). A good king goes bonkers and does a giant “eff you” to all things living, apparently because he can’t get over his son dying. And the Charr all of a sudden claim justice as their “homeland” is finally being returned to them…

Sigh…I don’t think fighting to reclaim Ascalon is even the remotest of possibilities in GW2 Tryia. Even if they tried to write it in somehow, it wouldn’t make any sense. Too much was changed and altered for that.

If, however, I were given the opportunity right after Adelbern defeats the Titans at the end of Proph, I would whole-heartedly try to reclaim the north.

It would make sense back then. It doesn’t make any sense now really.

Doesn’t make any sense for the queen to randomly wage war on the charr for no reason.

They’d have to give us a really, really good reason. If they didn’t, the charr would be justified in their efforts to defend their land.

Given what we know now about one and other, it would be the epitome of immoral and stupid on our part. Humans would unquestionably be the aggressors.

What can be said of the past is lost to time.

In this age, to borrow a RL example, to do that would be a lot like Britain today waging war on the US because of what happened in 1775.

Doesn’t excuse the fact that the charr held a grudge to begin with that cost them their land, their history, and their freedom under flame legion rule…

But they’ve more then paid for that.

It’s arguable if fate isn’t still exacting a toll for it all, when you consider Ascalon is a very haunted land… and the visage is human.

I digress. Like it or not, the old war is dead. The charr rightfully won the greater part of Ascalon.

I wouldn’t support a random war against the charr for no reason at all other then LOL landgrab. That’s stupid.

At any rate, it’s not like the charr are xenophobic. Ascalon isn’t shut off to humanity. As long as you respect you’re in a charr nation you shouldn’t have any problems.

Or if that’s just not going to fly, we do certainly own a swath of the land to the south.

CETheLucid.3964:

Doesn’t make any sense for the queen to randomly wage war on the charr for no reason.

They’d have to give us a really, really good reason. If they didn’t, the charr would be justified in their efforts to defend their land.

Given what we know now about one and other, it would be the epitome of immoral and stupid on our part. Humans would unquestionably be the aggressors.

What can be said of the past is lost to time.

In this age, to borrow a RL example, to do that would be a lot like Britain today waging war on the US because of what happened in 1775.

Doesn’t excuse the fact that the charr held a grudge to begin with that cost them their land, their history, and their freedom under flame legion rule…

But they’ve more then paid for that.

It’s arguable if fate isn’t still exacting a toll for it all, when you consider Ascalon is a very haunted land… and the visage is human.

I digress. Like it or not, the old war is dead. The charr rightfully won the greater part of Ascalon.

I wouldn’t support a random war against the charr for no reason at all other then LOL landgrab. That’s stupid.

At any rate, it’s not like the charr are xenophobic. Ascalon isn’t shut off to humanity. As long as you respect you’re in a charr nation you shouldn’t have any problems.

Or if that’s just not going to fly, we do certainly own a swath of the land to the south.

I agree it doesn’t make sense in this place and time, but I think you oversimplify the issue.

It wouldn’t exactly be immoral for the Ascalonians to fight back. After all, Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s. The Charr homelands are on the Blazeridge Steppes are they not? Ascalonians will cease to exist if they let go of Ebonhawke.

Also, your RL example doesn’t fit. Most Americans at the time of the Revolutionary War were former English, or at least British. The Charr/Human dynamic is very different from that. I can’t think of an apt RL comparison honestly, partially because it’s just hard to find one that fits well, but mostly because the Charr were never intended to play the role of a peer to humanity. That’s just not how they were originally written. Granted, these writers went to great lengths to establish their credibility, but that doesn’t change the way in which they were historically portrayed.

That biased disconnect is the real heart of the matter here, not so much the current situation in Ascalon. That bias is not necessarily a bad thing, or a wrong thing. It’s simply the result of playing the game(GW1) the way it was intended to be played, and accepting the heroes and villains for who they were at face value. Immersion into the storyline of that game wouldn’t make sense if we questioned the relative sovereignty and rights of every enemy mob we came across. And the Charr were the A-list bad guys of that game. There was no question about that until the GW2 team came along and produced EotN as a prequel to this game.

GW2 isn’t like that. Moral ambiguity is the currency of the story. The dragons aren’t really evil, just doing their jobs as magic sponges. The Svanir aren’t really evil, just misguided. The Risen aren’t evil, they don’t even have their own minds anymore. Etc, etc, etc to infinity. In GW1 this wasn’t the case. The Titans were evil. Khilbron was evil. And the Charr…were evil. Is that boring and simple? A little, yes. But that’s just how it was. It would have been nice to introduce a little moral ambiguity into this game, but instead they went whole hog on it and there is almost nothing that is considered a “hands-down bad-guy” in GW2. It’s relativity on crack.

I understand they wanted to introduce more playable races to the game, which is fine. There are plenty of ways to do that, even for a main antagonist like the Charr. But the method in which they did it is why so many have a problem with them. Not only did they destroy an existing culture’s heritage in the process(Ascalonians), but they actually managed to completely reverse an established paradigm and make the Ascalonians out to be the bad guys. Umm…wut? And the only reason they did that, the only reason, was to give each race in GW2 an equal piece of the Tyrian pie. Nothing more.

To me that reads: Promoting a new playable race is not only more important than preserving the cultural integrity of older one, but also more important than the core narrative of the old game itself. And that is unacceptable.

Simply put, there was no good reason to kill Ascalon just to give birth to the Charr nation. Trying to reclaim it now, with the way the current setting plays out, would be silly.

ascalon originally belonged to the charr look at time line in BE 100 http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Timeline

THE Blazeridge Steppes are the blood legion home land look on the map

Yeah I was going to compare the Ascalon vs. Charr dynamic to Indiginous People vs. Colonist.

This is new and exciting.

Obsidian.1328:

It wouldn’t exactly be immoral for the Ascalonians to fight back. After all, Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s. The Charr homelands are on the Blazeridge Steppes are they not? Ascalonians will cease to exist if they let go of Ebonhawke.

You’re entire post is kinds made invalid by the fact that Ascalon has always been Charr land, humans took it from the Iron Legion and the Legions took it back. It’s in the Iron Legion intro vid as well as the lore timeline in the books and on the wiki. You’re talking about Blood Legion land.
Humans will not be taking Charr land again unless they want to be seen the same way the Charr were in GW1.

This would be like if European colonists fought to reclaim a city which was burned to the ground by Native Americans.

Native Americans (Charr and Grawl) constantly displace each other.
Colonists displace the Natives (Human and Charr)
Natives retake the land
Colonists retake the land

The fact people don’t seem the understand, in real life mainly, is that land claims are kittening stupid. Native Americans still claim that the land belonging to Americans is theirs. Okay, so their ancestor 300 years ago lived there, and now someone who has absolutley zero ties to the land wants to displace someone who has lived there their entire life?

The same parallels are in GW1 and GW2.

Charr displace Grawl, it is now Charr land. (over a period of hundreds of years)
Human displace Charr, it is now Human land. (after the charr have lived there for hundreds/thousands of years)
Charr displace Human, it is now Charr land. (after the humans have lived their for hundreds/thousands of years)
Humans wish to conquer Charr lands, after it has been Charr lands for hundreds of years.

No one has any justifiable claim to land other than the person living on it, or else no one would belong anywhere with all the conquering and reclaiming of land.

Ascalon was originally land of the Grawl, Forgotten and most likely the Dwarves, the Charr came as invaders. Humanity took it from a violent aggressive species that was purely evil in GW1, so i see nothing wrong in taking it from them in terms of GW1. They still had large areas under their control in GW1 (called the Charr Homelands). After a thousand years of living in Ascalon it had become human land. Same right for the Charr of today, Ascalon is theirs. It does not mean humanity should forget what the Charr did – genocide, destruction of the land, etc. etc.

If nations of today, in our real world, still insisted on claims from a thousand years ago then plenty of nations would cease to exist. But this is a fantasy world. Same rights for humanity, they can hold a grudge for another 750 years with the free right to wage war agains the Charr. Or do they? No, humanity is more civilized than that, for the most part, except for some Separatists. The Charr are even willing to give some part of Ascalon back to humanity.

In case Kryta started a war with the Legions, just hypothetical speaking, then my human characters would fight against the Charr. Even more so if the Charr started another war with humanity, which, given their background, culture and history, is not completely unlikely. But the ingame world is different from that, the Charr are learning that allies can be actually useful against their plentiful enemies, and in the forseeable future they can’t risk another conflict.

The theme of GW2 is cooperation among nations, orders and species, it won’t come to a war between the Charr and humanity. Doesn’t mean old GW1 players like me have forgotten about the Charr’s barbarism in old times.

The group with the most weapons wins the land grab of course. I’d align myself with the side who has more firepower.

xxgrimxx.3510:

ascalon originally belonged to the charr look at time line in BE 100 http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Timeline

Originally it was the grawl, or the dwarves, or the rocks and the trees. The Charr never built any permanent settlements there, they were hunter-gatherer types. They claimed a lot of stuff as theirs back then, because up until humans came along no one had beaten them at war. Also, Humans named it Ascalon. As far as we know, the Charr never even had a name for it.

xxgrimxx.3510:

THE Blazeridge Steppes are the blood legion home land look on the map

The Blood Legion didn’t exist until GW2 was in development. In GW1 they were all just Charr. And no, the Blazeridge Steppes were the homelands of all the Charr, not just the Blood Legion. They changed that to provide more legitimacy to the Charr living in Ascalon now.

Ashes.9586:

Obsidian.1328:

It wouldn’t exactly be immoral for the Ascalonians to fight back. After all, Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s. The Charr homelands are on the Blazeridge Steppes are they not? Ascalonians will cease to exist if they let go of Ebonhawke.

You’re entire post is kinds made invalid by the fact that Ascalon has always been Charr land, humans took it from the Iron Legion and the Legions took it back. It’s in the Iron Legion intro vid as well as the lore timeline in the books and on the wiki. You’re talking about Blood Legion land.
Humans will not be taking Charr land again unless they want to be seen the same way the Charr were in GW1.

The Charr certainly weren’t the first there, and it was the gods who put humanity there and they named it Ascalon. If you want someone to blame for that, blame them. There weren’t any legions back then either, they made that up for GW2.

Personally, I’d support efforts to get all humans together (through politics if needed) including those in Lion’s Arch, and strengthen our homelands. Also, there’s plenty of territory near Kryta that isn’t occupied by any of the major forces.

Frosch.7809:

The theme of GW2 is cooperation among nations, orders and species, it won’t come to a war between the Charr and humanity.

Exactly.

Which is one of the core reasons why this game is so bland. They forced an artificial narrative onto Tyria that doesn’t jive with its history.

It’s like, if you’re not holding each other’s hands or singing kumbaya around the campfire, you’re doing it wrong.

The game-world of Tyria was founded upon the blood and guts of constant war and strife between all races.

Why bother. The writers for GW2 have created a distorted storyline that doesn’t make any sense with GW1. This game is dead to me. The sad things is how willingly people accept the infomation is given to them, and how there is zero choice for the player to have any opinion, on any subject matter in gw2.

The lore is fine. USA and Great Britain have become kumbaya themselves even though much of the colonial history was founded in blood and guts. 250 years is a long time for a lot of things to happen. In fact, looking at RL history of France, England, US and Spain we see that often timkes when wars end, they just end.

Dustfinger.9510:

The lore is fine. USA and Great Britain have become kumbaya themselves even though much of the colonial history was founded in blood and guts. 250 years is a long time for a lot of things to happen. In fact, looking at RL history of France, England, US and Spain we see that often timkes when wars end, they just end.

I assume you alluded your post to mine with your wording. Using RL examples is wonderful, you can find about anything to back up your argument. Palestine alone could counter your stance, they’ve been at each other’s throats for what…2 millenia now? Often times when wars end, they just start back up again too.

The point isn’t that RL examples exist to the contrary. One big point GW2 does is it literally doesn’t let you decide for yourself what is right and wrong. It tells you what the correct moral stance is, and if you disagree you are in the wrong.

That’s really lame.

Eh, not directly at your post. More a combination of the sentiments in yours and dream runners. (Not personal, just that you two were the last few posts) What I gathered is that you two feel the current GW2 story line doesn’t make logical sense considering the events of GW1. But we see from RL events that they can jive with it’s history. Since we have RL events that correlate.

On not letting us decide whats right or wrong, we couldn’t in GW1 either. Charr were bad, humans were good. End of story. But that has nothing to do with what I addressed.

Dustfinger.9510:

Charr were bad, humans were good. End of story.

No. Genocide, killing women and children, burning them alive → bad.

On the topic:

Ascalonians were there almost since the gods brought them to Tyria. They built a kingdom. Then, savages (aka charr) came back with some extra help from a god after not caring for 1,300 years.

Ascalon isn’t ancestral charr alnd, they’ve claimed it from the Forgotten → ones that gave Orr to the humans and let them take Ascalon from the charr.

I would take part in retaking it for sure! But that won’t happen. However.. there are chances that roughly 30% of Ascalon can go back to human hands, from Ebonhawke to Drascir + some lands over the brand below Ashford. I would be fine with that. For now.

Gandarel.5091:

No. Genocide, killing women and children, burning them alive -> bad.

That doesn’t really contradict anything I said. But …cool story bro?

Forgotten gave Orr to humans then let them take Ascalon form the charr? Implying the forgotten were some overarching power in charge of issuing ascalon out to others. We must have gotten new lore…….. or new fanfic <.<

I hate everything about Charr, for they are … Charr. And I would like to see them go extinct before all others races.
Yet, I don’t see any good reason to go with claiming Ascalon for Divinity’s Reach.

Ascalon still has its rightul claimants: the Ghosts of Ascalon, who have been there for their whole existence.

Dustfinger.9510:

The lore is fine. USA and Great Britain have become kumbaya themselves even though much of the colonial history was founded in blood and guts. 250 years is a long time for a lot of things to happen. In fact, looking at RL history of France, England, US and Spain we see that often timkes when wars end, they just end.

The lore is not fine. I’ve created a few posts before why it isn’t fine, and so has others in other threads. But I’ll give you one, for instance – why do people have to be constantly corrected about Ascalon being the Charr “homeland?” Why do people quickly assume this?

Also if you looked at history, really looked at history, especially the 20th century history. You’ll understand how wars dont just end, but create additional and different settings for more wars. Just look at the Bulkans Wars and World War 1, or World War 1 to World War 2! Just look at the Middle East.

Finally. This will be my post. Goodbye GW2.

Dustfinger.9510:

On not letting us decide whats right or wrong, we couldn’t in GW1 either. Charr were bad, humans were good. End of story. But that has nothing to do with what I addressed.

Very good point, but there wasn’t really anything to decide with that. There was no reason to question that dynamic because it didn’t really involve the player, they were an impersonal mob much like any other we ran across. I mean, why stop there? Maybe we should give the Titans a fair shake, after all, they were duped into it by Abaddon. Poor fella’s were used. -_- With the situation in Ascalon now, it’s immensely personal because of the past lore.

For one thing, flipping the tables and saying that now the Charr are right and Ascalonians wrong does not serve it justice. It’s like the writer’s felt bad for them and are trying to make some other race pay for them being the bad guy back then. It’s crappy writing.

For another, trying to bring in some moral relativity is a good thing. But that’s not what they did here. They are very clear that you(as the player) should accept the current scenario, or you are in the wrong. If GW1 didn’t exist, none of this would matter of course. But forcing a moral stance on the player with this issue while the letting the regular “villians” swim freely in a bath of moral ambiguity is not just strange, but insulting.

I mean, Zhaitan isn’t good or evil really, but a Separatist should be dragged out of his home and killed on the street? /slapintheface

Dustfinger.9510:

On not letting us decide whats right or wrong, we couldn’t in GW1 either. Charr were bad, humans were good. End of story. But that has nothing to do with what I addressed.

In GW1 i, for my part, did not have any problems with what may be right or wrong, at least not when it came to the Charr. They were clearly evil (at least till EotN) and the question about morality did not arise at all. The thought of seeing things from the Charr’s perspective never arose for me in GW1, and it clearly wasn’t meant to be seen that way.

In GW2 we have 5 different views on what is right or wrong, while being forced into the role of a paragon of morality. It would have been nice to be given a choice about it, if it was just to be able to pick from among a few lines of dialogue with some small differences.

I just don’t compare GW1 with 2 when it comes to morals – but here in GW2, with so many different species, organizations and factions the lack of a choice about our view of morality is just too obvious.

Why can’t i tell a Charr NPC to go to hell for example? Doesn’t mean i wouldn’t kill Zhaitan in my personal story or endanger the peace talks between Charr and Kryta.

Obsidian.1328:

I mean, Zhaitan isn’t good or evil really, but a Separatist should be dragged out of his home and killed on the street? /slapintheface

I find that part of the game quite creepy, especially in light of the developpers’ commentaries, saying that they’d have everyone to play ‘only heroes’.
Only heroes … who perform summary executions, hunt for heretics, plunder nonallied strongholds and threaten discenters. The only alternative is to close dialog or skip gameplay – which I find myself doing more often than in any other game.

I don’t think my mesmer would bother.

Larynx.2453:

This would be like if European colonists fought to reclaim a city which was burned to the ground by Native Americans.

Native Americans (Charr and Grawl) constantly displace each other.
Colonists displace the Natives (Human and Charr)
Natives retake the land
Colonists retake the land

The fact people don’t seem the understand, in real life mainly, is that land claims are kittening stupid. Native Americans still claim that the land belonging to Americans is theirs. Okay, so their ancestor 300 years ago lived there, and now someone who has absolutley zero ties to the land wants to displace someone who has lived there their entire life?

The same parallels are in GW1 and GW2.

Charr displace Grawl, it is now Charr land. (over a period of hundreds of years)
Human displace Charr, it is now Human land. (after the charr have lived there for hundreds/thousands of years)
Charr displace Human, it is now Charr land. (after the humans have lived their for hundreds/thousands of years)
Humans wish to conquer Charr lands, after it has been Charr lands for hundreds of years.

No one has any justifiable claim to land other than the person living on it, or else no one would belong anywhere with all the conquering and reclaiming of land.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, Ascalon has been fought over for so long, changed hands enough that at this point no one has any more “ascestral” right to than anyone else. The charr currently have it and have had it for well over two centuries, for all intents and purposes it’s theirs now.

Besides, even though things have started regrowing after the searing Ascalon’s still the most messed up region of Tyria. The brand and those foefire ghosts aren’t going anywhere and they kill humans just as fast as they kill charr so why anyone would want to fight the charr over such a place is beyond me.

Dream Runner.8546:

The lore is not fine. I’ve created a few posts before why it isn’t fine, and so has others in other threads. But I’ll give you one, for instance – why do people have to be constantly corrected about Ascalon being the Charr “homeland?” Why do people quickly assume this?

Also if you looked at history, really looked at history, especially the 20th century history. You’ll understand how wars dont just end, but create additional and different settings for more wars. Just look at the Bulkans Wars and World War 1, or World War 1 to World War 2! Just look at the Middle East.

Finally. This will be my post. Goodbye GW2.

because people who want humans to have Ascalon are too touchy about the term “homeland”. e.g.: Germany is the German peoples “homeland”, but we all originated in Africa.

I gave examples of how RL wars do end. Not all of them do, but many do.

Obsidian/Frosch: Please don’t think I don’t understand. I do. I just think it’s a losing battle and it really isn’t that much different from GW1 (in one sense atleast). In the first game, we were given an outlook. We accepted it because it was easy to accept it for many reasons. In the second game we are given an outlook. We can choose to accept it or we can choose not to because it is more difficult for various reasons, but it is completely up to what we choose to do as individuals. That’s not a greater lore problem as it’s being portrayed. it’s a lore problem in the sense that the spirit of the lore is altered even though the actual events can make absolute sense.

Riot Inducer:

Ascalon has been fought over for so long, changed hands enough that at this point no one has any more “ascestral” right to than anyone else.

Well put. Both sides can claim ancestral rights till they’re blue in the face but it doesn’t matter unless they posses it. So the possession is more the validation of ancestral rights than ancestral rights the validation of possession. Since there is no greater over arching law to counter the actual possession.

Dustfinger, really, you as a charr fanboy, came to this section from time to time just to argue with the human fanboys? I can totally see the point of it.. not.

Guys! no need for arguments, the question is IF we were suddenly at war with the Charr. I understand that war against the Charr is unlikely due to our bonds within the pack against the elder dragons.

However, looking back at the history of the Charr Invasion, it’s clear that they did not only intend to “reclaim” Ascalon but to annihilate the entire human race if possible. Cause shortly after the breach of the Great Northern Wall the Charr then advanced towards Orr and Tyria which resulted to the sinking of Orr and the creation of the white mantle.
.
.
Now some say that the Charr invasion had only ended because of a civil war suddenly erupted against the flame legion (no pun intended c: ) and that the Charr couldn’t afford to fight a full on war against the human race while this was happening. [citation needed]
If this is the case, what would happen if that civil war against the flame legion ends? No doubt that tensions would be high.
.
.
Other useful information:
High Legion
The Searing
The Ruins Of Orr
The Origins Of The Human Race (youtube video)

Dustfinger.9510:

it’s a lore problem in the sense that the spirit of the lore is altered even though the actual events can make absolute sense.

Well…the events make tacit sense. I wouldn’t say absolute. But the real kernel of truth with your statement there is the “spirit” of the lore. Facts and figures should never trump spirit and theme when dealing with fictional story continuity. GW2 tried hard to meld the new with the old…in terms of raw facts. Big deal, anyone can do that who can read. But emulating the spirit of a thing, does justice to a thing…in so many ways. It is more honest, genuine, practical, reasonable, reliable, believable…better. It’s just plain better.

Sentimentality is not the main reason for my issues with the new lore. It’s mostly disgust at the ANet for using GW1 as a lore-pot of goodies with which to sell a new product. That may seem an overreaction to you, but given the dozens of ways in which this game salvages and alters old lore to better serve their new “vision” of Tyria, I feel justified in saying so. You can downplay the importance of that if you want, but to me it’s one of those things that you never mess with when adding to an established narrative.

Obsidian.1328:

Well…the events make tacit sense. I wouldn’t say absolute. But the real kernel of truth with your statement there is the “spirit” of the lore. Facts and figures should never trump spirit and theme when dealing with fictional story continuity. GW2 tried hard to meld the new with the old…in terms of raw facts. Big deal, anyone can do that who can read. But emulating the spirit of a thing, does justice to a thing…in so many ways. It is more honest, genuine, practical, reasonable, reliable, believable…better. It’s just plain better.

Sentimentality is not the main reason for my issues with the new lore. It’s mostly disgust at the ANet for using GW1 as a lore-pot of goodies with which to sell a new product. That may seem an overreaction to you, but given the dozens of ways in which this game salvages and alters old lore to better serve their new “vision” of Tyria, I feel justified in saying so. You can downplay the importance of that if you want, but to me it’s one of those things that you never mess with when adding to an established narrative.

In no way am I trying to down play the importance. I realize it can be very personal to some. My point when I bring this up from time to time is that it is not always the actual problem. e.g.: Here when it’s brought up to try to demonstrate that the lore can’t possibly make sense. because when it just gets accepted, it gets repeated in other topics. Then we have a people in other topics saying the lore doesn’t actually make sense and extrapolating off of that flawed perspective, when it actually does make sense. If you’ve noticed, I state my piece about choices but I don’t try to counter how the zeitgeist isn’t the same. It’s because we do agree on that part. We may not share the exact same sentiments about it (similar in some areas), but we do share the same facts.

Gandarel.5091:

Dustfinger, really, you as a charr fanboy, came to this section from time to time just to argue with the human fanboys? I can totally see the point of it.. not.

And over in the charr forums, some label me as a norn fanboi. Go figure. Some fanbois can’t grasp the concept of the absence of fanboi-ism.

also commenting on my posts just to argue with me in multiple topics without actually addressing the topic is the epitome of irony.

Dustfinger.9510:

Obsidian.1328:

Well…the events make tacit sense. I wouldn’t say absolute. But the real kernel of truth with your statement there is the “spirit” of the lore. Facts and figures should never trump spirit and theme when dealing with fictional story continuity. GW2 tried hard to meld the new with the old…in terms of raw facts. Big deal, anyone can do that who can read. But emulating the spirit of a thing, does justice to a thing…in so many ways. It is more honest, genuine, practical, reasonable, reliable, believable…better. It’s just plain better.

Sentimentality is not the main reason for my issues with the new lore. It’s mostly disgust at the ANet for using GW1 as a lore-pot of goodies with which to sell a new product. That may seem an overreaction to you, but given the dozens of ways in which this game salvages and alters old lore to better serve their new “vision” of Tyria, I feel justified in saying so. You can downplay the importance of that if you want, but to me it’s one of those things that you never mess with when adding to an established narrative.

In no way am I trying to down play the importance. I realize it can be very personal to some. My point when I bring this up from time to time is that it is not always the actual problem. e.g.: Here when it’s brought up to try to demonstrate that the lore can’t possibly make sense. because when it just gets accepted, it gets repeated in other topics. Then we have a people in other topics saying the lore doesn’t actually make sense and extrapolating off of that flawed perspective, when it actually does make sense. If you’ve noticed, I state my piece about choices but I don’t try to counter how the zeitgeist isn’t the same. It’s because we do agree on that part. We may not share the exact same sentiments about it (similar in some areas), but we do share the same facts.

Hmm…I still disagree. Personal critiques is one thing, but there is such a thing as relative truth. A fine work of art remains fine whether or not anyone is looking at it. It’s utility is gone because there is no one there to appreciate it, but it’s still beautiful. Beauty is not entirely within the eye of the beholder. Beauty is truth, truth beauty.

The lore, in relation to both games, may make sense based on a mostly superficial and technical standard. Saying the lore doesn’t make sense isn’t flawed if you look at it with a holistic understanding of the contextual style with which it was written and presented in. When players say, “this game just doesn’t feel like Tyria to me,” this is what they are talking about.

As I’ve mentioned before, ANet specifically stated they were trying to stay true to the lore of GW1. Did they? Quantitatively, it does for the most part, if you allow for some minor fudging. The qualitative facts, however, don’t really share that view. GW2 lore is not the same as 1 because it follows a vastly different thematic and narrative style, and the bare bones “facts” have to bend to support that style. Otherwise it wouldn’t make much sense.

It’s the same reason why retaking Ascalon right after Adelbern destroyed the Titans would make complete sense, but trying that now would be just silly. And it’s not because of the 250 years, or the size of their armies, or anything to do with logistics. It’s because the theme of GW2 will not support that. Cooperation between the races isn’t just part of the story, it’s part of the DNA of the game. You have to accept that to effectively participate in the game’s narrative. It’s really that simple.

Obsidian.1328:

Hmm…I still disagree. Personal critiques is one thing, but there is such a thing as relative truth. A fine work of art remains fine whether or not anyone is looking at it. It’s utility is gone because there is no one there to appreciate it, but it’s still beautiful. Beauty is not entirely within the eye of the beholder. Beauty is truth, truth beauty.

The lore, in relation to both games, may make sense based on a mostly superficial and technical standard. Saying the lore doesn’t make sense isn’t flawed if you look at it with a holistic understanding of the contextual style with which it was written and presented in. When players say, “this game just doesn’t feel like Tyria to me,” this is what they are talking about.

As I’ve mentioned before, ANet specifically stated they were trying to stay true to the lore of GW1. Did they? Quantitatively, it does for the most part, if you allow for some minor fudging. The qualitative facts, however, don’t really share that view. GW2 lore is not the same as 1 because it follows a vastly different thematic and narrative style, and the bare bones “facts” have to bend to support that style. Otherwise it wouldn’t make much sense.

It’s the same reason why retaking Ascalon right after Adelbern destroyed the Titans would make complete sense, but trying that now would be just silly. And it’s not because of the 250 years, or the size of their armies, or anything to do with logistics. It’s because the theme of GW2 will not support that. Cooperation between the races isn’t just part of the story, it’s part of the DNA of the game. You have to accept that to effectively participate in the game’s narrative. It’s really that simple.

When players say it doesn’t feel like (GW1) tyria, I understand that. I don’t disagree. When players say that there is no way the krytans and the charr could come to a peace treaty. Or that in 250 years, most people would absolutely still be fighting for a dead nation, I disagree.

Dustfinger.9510:

Obsidian.1328:

Hmm…I still disagree. Personal critiques is one thing, but there is such a thing as relative truth. A fine work of art remains fine whether or not anyone is looking at it. It’s utility is gone because there is no one there to appreciate it, but it’s still beautiful. Beauty is not entirely within the eye of the beholder. Beauty is truth, truth beauty.

The lore, in relation to both games, may make sense based on a mostly superficial and technical standard. Saying the lore doesn’t make sense isn’t flawed if you look at it with a holistic understanding of the contextual style with which it was written and presented in. When players say, “this game just doesn’t feel like Tyria to me,” this is what they are talking about.

As I’ve mentioned before, ANet specifically stated they were trying to stay true to the lore of GW1. Did they? Quantitatively, it does for the most part, if you allow for some minor fudging. The qualitative facts, however, don’t really share that view. GW2 lore is not the same as 1 because it follows a vastly different thematic and narrative style, and the bare bones “facts” have to bend to support that style. Otherwise it wouldn’t make much sense.

It’s the same reason why retaking Ascalon right after Adelbern destroyed the Titans would make complete sense, but trying that now would be just silly. And it’s not because of the 250 years, or the size of their armies, or anything to do with logistics. It’s because the theme of GW2 will not support that. Cooperation between the races isn’t just part of the story, it’s part of the DNA of the game. You have to accept that to effectively participate in the game’s narrative. It’s really that simple.

When players say it doesn’t feel like (GW1) tyria, I understand that. I don’t disagree. When players say that there is no way the krytans and the charr could come to a peace treaty. Or that in 250 years, most people would absolutely still be fighting for a dead nation, I disagree.

Ascalon is not a dead nation. Not more than the charrs were 400 years ago.

#believeinPalawa

I think if Palawa has anything to do with it, Ascalon will be just as dead a nation as it is now. No matter what. Who’s deader, a ghost or a zombie? :P

Ascalon was far from dead at the close of GW1. But yeah, Palawa is like the Joker, he’d rather just see the world burn.

I’d actually follow Joko. Just once, let us leave behind the total good-guy thing and give us an undead conquerror to follow.

For the greater good, ofc.

Get some kind of necro-night class and that seems the perfect class concept for a human.

Dustfinger.9510:

Get some kind of necro-knight class and that seems the perfect class concept for a human.

Yeah, or just make necros use shield and sword :P A necro with ghastly grinning shield would be just awesome.

Gandarel.5091:

I’d actually follow Joko. Just once, let us leave behind the total good-guy thing and give us an undead conquerror to follow.

For the greater good, ofc.

Well , there would be a greater good served in following Palawa – i.e. a good that outweighs his evil:
• to defend the choice to have a demon-free afterlife
• to prevent bloodshed between provinces
• to preserve families accross death
• to keep wisdom forever undying
• to make resources obsolete as a source of conflict
• to allow the dead to seek justice
• to protect the society that has taken root over 2 centuries.

Bazompora.2635:

Gandarel.5091:

I’d actually follow Joko. Just once, let us leave behind the total good-guy thing and give us an undead conquerror to follow.

For the greater good, ofc.

Well , there would be a greater good served in following Palawa – i.e. a good that outweighs his evil:
• to defend the choice to have a demon-free afterlife
• to prevent bloodshed between provinces
• to preserve families accross death
• to keep wisdom forever undying
• to make resources obsolete as a source of conflict
• to allow the dead to seek justice
• to protect the society that has taken root over 2 centuries.

Exactly. If done right, Elona hold such grear possibilities.. which will be totally ruined I’m 10000% sure if they release an expansion with that. Because they just can’t seem to do things right, mostly not story-wise in GW2.