Guild Wars 2

The Charr would make the humans almost extinct again…

milton.1796:

The Charr would make the humans almost extinct again…

Unless they get help from a human god again, I doubt it. Humans managed to make the charrs almost extinct, too.

Charr can have it. What i want is a alliance with Centaur, Forgotten and Krait for Kryta, Elona and Cantha respectively.

Andele.1306:

Charr can have it. What i want is a alliance with Centaur, Forgotten and Krait for Kryta, Elona and Cantha respectively.

What i want is you taking effort to know the lore behind those races and the current situation and comment only after…

I think the fairest solution for Ascalon would be sharing it, as both humans and charr have a legitimate claim to it. The west (Black Citadel) should go to the charr, the east (Ebonhawke) to the humans, and Ascalon City could be rebuilt as an open city for both charr and humans.

I would. Then I would try and improve the soil/land/etc. Have some vegetation there. There has to be some way to either import soil or plant magic to get things growing there.

I really like the idea of Ascalon City being rebuilt as an open city for both races.

Ascalon is already almost fully recovered from the Searing. Compared to the hellhole it was immediately after (and for at least 5 years afterwards), the damage caused by the Searing is almost completely gone.

The only reason those ruins haven’t been cleaned up and/or restored is because of the ghosts.

Obsidian.1328:

The Charr certainly weren’t the first there, and it was the gods who put humanity there and they named it Ascalon.

The charr weren’t the first ones there. That was the forgotten.

However, the human gods were not the ones who put humanity in Ascalon nor are they the ones who named it Ascalon. Humans did those two things on their own.

The ones who claimed the land after the forgotten aided the human gods are the charr. The charr were at war with the forgotten over it until then.

It’s possible (and maybe as a result of the charr aggression against the forgotten) the human gods blessed humanities expansion into what would become Ascalon.

Of course, humanity fought against the forgotten as well. On a different front, with a different premise, and in a different land, but… yeah.

Poor forgotten. </3

Obsidian.1328:

There weren’t any legions back then either, they made that up for GW2.

In the distant past before the time of the original Khan-Ur, their probably weren’t any legions. The charr lived primitively, as did most of the races.

After that time, yes, there were legions. The descendents of the original Khan-Ur, who make up the legions of today.

That we didn’t always know that/wasn’t written yet doesn’t make it so. It’s their story to write. You’re free to think it sucks, but it is what it is.

I like it.

CEThelucid

I didn’t mean the gods named it that, I meant the humans did. I just worded it badly.

And the gods did help humans establish Ascalon. They were brought to Tyria by them from…wherever. And the gods, until the exodus, treated them almost like sheep until then. Besides, if you look in the “Human” section of the wiki, it states it directly.

As for the legions, my point was they were retroactively written in, and not part of the original gameplay. Ofc, now they have existed for a long time. But then they didn’t exist at all. Get it? XD

I realize it’s an organic story and grows both forward and back, I’m not intentionally being obtuse. All I’m saying is that initial intention with the Charr never involved exploring them as a playable race. That came later…and even though ANet did a good job splicing them into the storyline, you can’t totally erase the setting of the game before this happened. It’s one reason the Charr feel…off a bit, at least with the GW1 playerbase(yes I know, not all of them).

“It’s their story to write.” Legally yes, realistically not exactly. The writer’s that wrote Proph(and I say only Proph because it’s the only one that concerns the Charr until GW2 development started) are no longer employed by ANet. While that don’t mean jack squat in video game circles, it means something very subtle nonetheless. Since the current authors chose not to continue along quite the same trajectory as those first writers, there’s a degree of inauthenticity present. Granted it’s small and pretty lifeless now. But it’s there.

Btw, I actually like the Charr cultural history, it’s very well done. I just think it doesn’t make a good fit here.

As for the legions, my point was they were retroactively written in, and not part of the original gameplay. Ofc, now they have existed for a long time. But then they didn’t exist at all. Get it? XD

Them not existing when you played GW1 is irrelevant in the context of the lore. The lore now says there were legions then. I don’t know, or care, whether this is a retcon or filling in unknown information. But they had the Legions during the fight for Ascalon.

“It’s their story to write.” Legally yes, realistically not exactly. The writer’s that wrote Proph(and I say only Proph because it’s the only one that concerns the Charr until GW2 development started) are no longer employed by ANet. While that don’t mean jack squat in video game circles, it means something very subtle nonetheless. Since the current authors chose not to continue along quite the same trajectory as those first writers, there’s a degree of inauthenticity present. Granted it’s small and pretty lifeless now. But it’s there.

…If you want to talk ‘realistically’, it’s irrelevant on that level. The writing staff didn’t choose to make Charr playable (and therefore, need to justify the Charr). You can try this on a higher level (Perhaps the game director or lead designer – someone in charge, in short), but if it’s just writers? Unimportant. You could certainly have a point artistically – if, for instance, the writers left because they couldn’t countenance the change.

Half of the old writers are still around btw. Legions existed around the time of GW1. They were formed after the death of the Khan-Ur, with each of his sons taking a part of the charrs since there was no clear hier.

Rutee.1058:

I don’t know, or care, whether this is a retcon or filling in unknown information.

Well I care, lol. When building on someone else’s work, there should always be a degree of respect paid to said work. Wouldn’t you agree?

Rutee.1058:

…If you want to talk ‘realistically’, it’s irrelevant on that level. The writing staff didn’t choose to make Charr playable (and therefore, need to justify the Charr). You can try this on a higher level (Perhaps the game director or lead designer – someone in charge, in short), but if it’s just writers? Unimportant. You could certainly have a point artistically – if, for instance, the writers left because they couldn’t countenance the change.

Oh I’m not naive enough to think this decision didn’t come from higher up, although I would say writer input was part of the equation as well. But why does that matter? My point is happens to be very artistic, btw. I know this discussion ultimately doesn’t matter one bit, I’m not arguing for them to change it now. I’m arguing it shouldn’t have been done in the first place. Simply because of the artistic integrity of the original story and setting.

Fool’s errand? Probably. Just speaking my mind.

Well I care, lol. When building on someone else’s work, there should always be a degree of respect paid to said work. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, apparently, I don’t. Not if ‘respect’ is defined as “All work done to create a thing is sacrosanct and can never be expanded on, nor redone if a new goal for the story is sought.”

Is this actually even a retcon? The GW1 wiki lists the formation of the Legions as spoilers for GW1.

But why does that matter?

Because you have very little evidence to think the original writers (Who apparently remain in force) wouldn’t have retconned it had they remained, and if you have any evidence whatsoever that they left in disgust over changes, you haven’t presented it.

My point is happens to be very artistic, btw.

That’s not actually true unless you conflate artistic integrity with maintaining an entirely inviolate canon.

Plot: The Drumand Priory discovers that the only way to end with the King Adelbern’s curse is to have a human king reclaim Ascalon. A human of the Adelbern’s bloodline starts a campaign to claim the throne of Ascalon and give the suffering ghosts the final rest.

Game changes: The whole Ascalonian map becomes an open pvp world for lvl 80 players as long as the event goes on. Norn, Asura and Sylvari can join 1 of 3 options: Support humans, support Charr or stay neutral (no pvp).

Open world events would change to match the event, players supporting human side won’t be abble to interact with Charr NPC’s (this includes selling, quests, events, etc.)

Outcome: The final event would be the siege of the Black Citadel. The amount of siege weapons and npc allies fighting for each side would be determined by the number of pvp kills and the number of completed events of each side. The curse won’t end if the humans win, it was all a trick okitteng Adelbern to grow his ghostly army and avenge the original fall of Ascalon.

Rutee.1058:

Is this actually even a retcon? The GW1 wiki lists the formation of the Legions as spoilers for GW1.

Odd then, that a simple Google search “guild wars charr legions” comes up with literally nothing between 2003 and 2007, and a whole lot after that. There’s a reason professor’s don’t let you quote wiki ya know, they are rife with editing.

Rutee.1058:

Because you have very little evidence to think the original writers (Who apparently remain in force) wouldn’t have retconned it had they remained, and if you have any evidence whatsoever that they left in disgust over changes, you haven’t presented it.

Eh, a single dude wrote all of Proph. Him and a handful of others wrote Factions. None of which are still there. The big staff turnovers came with Nightfall and EotN, at which point GW2 was a foregone conclusion.

I never said the old writer’s don’t like the new content, I haven’t a clue. Maybe they adore it. At any rate, a public game-world like this doesn’t really belong strictly to the creator anymore anyway. It belongs both to the contextual and artistic style with which it was written, as well as to the thousands of fans who fell in love with it.

Rutee.1058:

That’s not actually true unless you conflate artistic integrity with maintaining an entirely inviolate canon.

You’re late to the party, I’ve already bantered back and forth on this with others here ad nauseum, I doubt they want to see a redux. The art isn’t inviolate, however, I do believe it is sacred. Those aren’t the same things. Every addition to an established work of art should be critically judged, no matter what it is.

My angle is simple: the further one strays from the spirit of its predecessor, the less credibility it’s due as an acceptable heir.

NumenorLord.6539:

Plot: The Drumand Priory discovers that the only way to end with the King Adelbern’s curse is to have a human king reclaim Ascalon. A human of the Adelbern’s bloodline starts a campaign to claim the throne of Ascalon and give the suffering ghosts the final rest.

Game changes: The whole Ascalonian map becomes an open pvp world for lvl 80 players as long as the event goes on. Norn, Asura and Sylvari can join 1 of 3 options: Support humans, support Charr or stay neutral (no pvp).

Open world events would change to match the event, players supporting human side won’t be abble to interact with Charr NPC’s (this includes selling, quests, events, etc.)

Outcome: The final event would be the siege of the Black Citadel. The amount of siege weapons and npc allies fighting for each side would be determined by the number of pvp kills and the number of completed events of each side. The curse won’t end if the humans win, it was all a trick okitteng Adelbern to grow his ghostly army and avenge the original fall of Ascalon.

Lol.

Will never happen, but kudos to your imagination. GW2 humans would lose that fight btw, although Adelbern might like that…

Odd then, that a simple Google search “guild wars charr legions” comes up with literally nothing between 2003 and 2007, and a whole lot after that. There’s a reason professor’s don’t let you quote wiki ya know, they are rife with editing.

No, the reason a competent professor doesn’t let you quote wikipedia is that it’s a secondary source, and therefore unseemly for academic purposes. Everything remotely authoritative is editted. And one fan is not more authoritative than another.

And what you’re actually telling me is that the changes were done in EotN, so your criticism is actually aimed there.

Eh, a single dude wrote all of Proph. Him and a handful of others wrote Factions. None of which are still there. The big staff turnovers came with Nightfall and EotN, at which point GW2 was a foregone conclusion.

So you have no evidence that they left in disgust over changes to lore, and acknowledge that if it did happen, it would have been over 1?

You’re late to the party

None of which changes your point requires an inviolate canon.

Every addition to an established work of art should be critically judged, no matter what it is

It seems pretty safe to say that these additions pass muster though. What you actually mean is to highlight how it changes canon as an absolute negative, and again, that’s not a premise I accept.

My angle is simple: the further one strays from the spirit of its predecessor, the less credibility it’s due as an acceptable heir.

Fleshing out a cartoonishly evil group will almost always make for a better heir for something serious.

Yes…my criticisms are aimed at the story beginning with EotN. Almost all of the staff involved with that were still here when GW2 launced. That’s where “you’re late to the party” comes in. Those old posts about that have been driven into the dirt.

No, I have no idea why the writers left. Why does that matter again?

Not inviolate canon, inviolate spirit. Preserving the facts of a thing is different than preserving the essence of a thing. GW2 preserved the facts well enough, but they threw away GW1’s essence and built an entirely new one. I can’t have a debate about this if you can’t understand this premise.

Your last line…you need to explain. It’s over my head.

Also, wiki’s are most aptly public secondary sources. A secondary source alone, while not the best choice, isn’t invalid. It’s just not a strong source.

No, I have no idea why the writers left. Why does that matter again?

Because you were trying to pin the shift in lore on the changing writers? The Charr were definitely going to get changed if they were made playable – whether the old writing staff had been there from the start or not. There’s pretty clearly not enough to work with what was there.

There’s people you can blame here that you have logical cause to, even; stick tot he decision makers.

Not inviolate canon, inviolate spirit. Preserving the facts of a thing is different than preserving the essence of a thing.

The only questionable-looking thing is the Iron Legion’s MO. You’re actually doing a really bad job at establishing the cornerstone of your claim, and it’s only something I can even provisionally accept because many others appear to agree in general (then again, fans can be high-strung over even the littlest changes, so even that’s shaky).

Also, wiki’s are most aptly public secondary sources. A secondary source alone, while not the best choice, isn’t invalid. It’s just not a strong source.

A secondary source is generally invalid for academic purposes. A competent professor would no more let you cite Encyclopedia Britannica prior to the advent of wikipedia than they will wikipedia now. An utterly incompetent professor will ignore the empirical evidence that, on average, wikipedia is just as accurate as Britannica, though, and try to say “It being public is teh supar bad”.

Come to think of it, it’d take a pretty incompetent student to try to say wikipedia isn’t sufficient for discussing things outside academia, and an utterly incompetent poser to use wiki status to impugn canon statements about a nerd thing that are on its fandom wiki. Wookiepedia is reasonably authoritative on Star Wars, and you’ve certainly given no reason to doubt GW Wikis in particular. Especially since your one attempt to say “It’s a wiki, therefore invalid” was to dismiss a thing you knew for a fact is true – that’s not just being a poser, that’s being intellectually dishonest.

I can’t have a debate about this if you can’t understand this premise.

I’d say you’re having more trouble with pretense and dishonesty.

The writers were the obvious choice…because they physically wrote it. Want me to pin it on someone else? Sure, why not. I have no idea who that is though. Maybe I should just say “staff” and call it good. My argument lies in the change, not who changed it. The writers were just an obvious target. Not sure why you focused on this particular thing, are you a writer by trade? If so, I’m sorry if I offended you by association. :/

How am I doing a bad job at establishing my claim? o.0

A secondary source, in and of itself, isn’t dirt. I could reference some dude who wrote a book about Caesar’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico, and come up with some stellar insights on the Gauls through this dude’s eyes. Doesn’t make it dirt, just secondary.

I never said you shouldn’t listen to wiki, only that you should take it with a grain of salt. Just because I used its weaknesses as a point in my argument doesn’t mean I think it’s dirt, sheesh. And I never said “It’s a wiki, therefore invalid” even though you put it in quotes to refer to me. Come to think of it, you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth lol. A poser? How so?

If you just want to have a mudslinging match we can start another topic somewhere and have at it, I’ve got spare time. In the mean time, I’m still interested in what you meant by Fleshing out a cartoonishly evil group will almost always make for a better heir for something serious.

Comentarii de Bello Gallico

Primary source on the Gauls, actually, if a biased one. It’s kind of written by a guy who was directly dealing with the Gauls.

I never said you shouldn’t listen to wiki, only that you should take it with a grain of salt. Just because I used its weaknesses as a point in my argument doesn’t mean I think it’s dirt, sheesh. And I never said “It’s a wiki, therefore invalid” even though you put it in quotes to refer to me. Come to think of it, you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth lol. A poser? How so?

Even if your claim had been limited to that, it’d still be INCREDIBLY dishonest to not immediately concede that what I said was true, given that you knew for a fact it was accurate. But there’s no reason to believe that your claim was limited to that. You were using the stance for academia to dismiss wikis. I’ll grant you didn’t directly state ’it’s a wiki, and therefore invalid’, but you were leaning on that heavily to make your point. You were, after all, heavily implying it was false.

And again, why should wikipedia be given special concern? The empirical evidence indicates it’s as accurate as Britannica. This is certainly acceptable for day to day discussions. And as to being a poser, it’s trying to ape an academic stance with no apparent understanding for the utility or origin of that stance. To be fair, there /are/ professors who just knee jerk at nominally public editting.

Fleshing out a cartoonishly evil group will almost always make for a better heir for something serious.

Within GW1, prior to EotN, the Charr appear to just be a kitty version of standard orcs – unjustified, evil, and only accepted because it’s genre standard. Fair enough, and nobody has to put a higher level of effort into showing everyone as a valid foe. Adding more depth to that, in a work trying to be ‘serious’ instead of aiming to the typically low standard of ‘for kids’, is pretty much always going to be an improvement.

Rutee.1058:

Primary source on the Gauls, actually, if a biased one. It’s kind of written by a guy who was directly dealing with the Gauls.

Primary source on the Celts being archaeological findings. And “biased” is an understatement when describing the man who was responsible for the death of one third of Gaul’s population. But that’s just on a sidenote.

About the Legions, i can’t remember them being mentioned during GW Prophecies, and even during EotN there is only the “Shaman caste”. I am not sure when the Legions were first mentioned, but for me they weren’t a part of GW1. And the Wiki pages have been edited along the years.

But for GW2 the Legions have been there since after the death of the Khan-Ur. Doesn’t change that they played no part in GW1, and it feels like they are a tool to make the Charr a playable species, to put the blame solely on some part of their society which is now outcast. It is also a way for the other 3 Legions to put the blame for atrocities away from their own ancestors.

But still, the Legions have always been there when it comes to the lore of the game we are currently playing. I won’t get into the discussion about the legitimacy of the current lore. There are fractions in the continuity of the lore without doubt, i avoid those by separating the two games when it comes to certain aspects. There is also no doubt imo that the fractions could have been avoided in many cases. I heard there is a certain bias towards the Charr among the game designers, not sure if it is the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Rutee.1058:

Comentarii de Bello Gallico Primary source on the Gauls, actually, if a biased one. It’s kind of written by a guy who was directly dealing with the Gauls.

Dude, learn to read lol. My example was about a guy writing a book about Caesar’s book, not about Caesar himself.

Rutee.1058:

Even if your claim had been limited to that, it’d still be INCREDIBLY dishonest to not immediately concede that what I said was true, given that you knew for a fact it was accurate. But there’s no reason to believe that your claim was limited to that. You were using the stance for academia to dismiss wikis. I’ll grant you didn’t directly state ’it’s a wiki, and therefore invalid’, but you were leaning on that heavily to make your point. You were, after all, heavily implying it was false.

I was implying it was false because not only is it commonly known throughout the player community that a lot of GW lore was written into the wiki post-Nightfall, but it has even been said so by ANet plenty of times. It’s how they connected the two games for crying out loud. I had no idea this was an issue.

Rutee.1058:

And again, why should wikipedia be given special concern? The empirical evidence indicates it’s as accurate as Britannica. This is certainly acceptable for day to day discussions. And as to being a poser, it’s trying to ape an academic stance with no apparent understanding for the utility or origin of that stance. To be fair, there /are/ professors who just knee jerk at nominally public editting.

Are you cereal? Did my random choice of an example enrage professors around the country lol. Good grief, I’m sorry if using an anecdotal nod to academia to highlight my point irked you. I shall try to steer clear of scholarly references in the future.

Rutee.1058:

Within GW1, prior to EotN, the Charr appear to just be a kitty version of standard orcs – unjustified, evil, and only accepted because it’s genre standard. Fair enough, and nobody has to put a higher level of effort into showing everyone as a valid foe. Adding more depth to that, in a work trying to be ‘serious’ instead of aiming to the typically low standard of ‘for kids’, is pretty much always going to be an improvement.

Now this one I’m dumbfounded on. I’ll grant you that the GW1 Charr were unfortunately simplistic and not fleshed out, but you have got to be joking to say GW2 is more ‘serious’ while GW1 was ‘for kids.’ This Tyria is literally drenched in cotton-candied, kiddy-fun-time fluff. I can’t walk ten feet without either an Asuran wisecrack, a fun box party, or some immersion-killing skin in my face. There are notable exceptions of course, but the vast majority of the game is rated Disney. Do you really not see that? I’m being sincere here, I don’t know anyone else that thinks that.

Frosch.7809:

Primary source on the Celts being archaeological findings. And “biased” is an understatement when describing the man who was responsible for the death of one third of Gaul’s population. But that’s just on a sidenote.

Long live Vercingetorix!

Could you magically just go back to the topic? :P

Primary source on the Celts being archaeological findings.

And people who directly dealt with them who made accounts of it.

But for GW2 the Legions have been there since after the death of the Khan-Ur. Doesn’t change that they played no part in GW1, and it feels like they are a tool to make the Charr a playable species, to put the blame solely on some part of their society which is now outcast. It is also a way for the other 3 Legions to put the blame for atrocities away from their own ancestors.

Yes, they are a tool to make the Charr a playable species. Welcome to writing. Similarly, their being more savage prior is an out to feel alright about killing them, and to not have to put more effort into explaining why they do what they do. These kinds of things happen in writing, even good writing.

Good grief, I’m sorry if using an anecdotal nod to academia to highlight my point irked you.

Your point is poorly illustrated – this isn’t academia, and if you were trying to act as though it were, you sorely lack in references. Wiki is perfectly acceptable for day to day life.

I was implying it was false because not only is it commonly known throughout the player community that a lot of GW lore was written into the wiki post-Nightfall, but it has even been said so by ANet plenty of times. It’s how they connected the two games for crying out loud. I had no idea this was an issue.

They connected the games through… the wiki? Not EotN, the actual expansion?

This Tyria is literally drenched in cotton-candied, kiddy-fun-time fluff.

I don’t usually associate Great Old One-esque dragons, complete with warped followers, with cotton candy kiddy fun time. Then again, there’s cthulhu plushies, and they’re adorb. I wish I’d been taking screenies in Orr now though, because really: for kids!

You’re confusing the presence of humor with the absence of seriousness. Lord of the Rings has its fair share of humor, even before Peter Jackson got a hold of it. Few would dispute that it is a serious setting. If you’d like to say that there’s mood whiplash in going from Lord Faren’s amazitude to, well, almost anything else in the plot, I won’t argue with you (Or, for a more stark example, Skrittsburgh. You fend off apocalyptic demons, slavers, and deranged scientists to find… skrittsburgh). But to say that it isn’t serious because there’s comic relief? No.

Also, Tyria is not literally drenched in cotton candied fluff. Although if it were, nobody would ever go hungry again, because there would be cotton candy everywhere. Literally: Does not mean what you apparently think it means

There are notable exceptions of course, but the vast majority of the game is rated Disney.

If by ‘notable exception’ you mean ‘the bulk of the personal stories, most renown hearts, and numerous events and meta-events, as well as the Living Story, the dungeon plots, and the like’ then yes. Even Metrica Province has friggin’ Chernobyl in it. The only thing I can recall with a particularly childish plot offhand was the Super Adventure Box – and fake retro isn’t generally for kids.

Could you magically just go back to the topic? :P

If you insist… no. There is about a zero percent chance of backing a queen going off the rails and acting in a clearly destructive manner by every plausible metric. Even if Kryta can win, which seems doubtful, what with it being an offensive war against a very well entrenched force, it will simply be too exhausted to help fight off the Dragons, screwing everyone when <insert dragon here> shows up on its doorstep and can easily corrupt huge swaths of the populace.

Rutee.1058:

Yes, they are a tool to make the Charr a playable species. Welcome to writing. Similarly, their being more savage prior is an out to feel alright about killing them, and to not have to put more effort into explaining why they do what they do. These kinds of things happen in writing, even good writing.

They also happen in bad writing, you’re point? Citing writing methods does little to add to the convo when discussing effective plausibility of overarching narrative continuity.

Rutee.1058:

Your point is poorly illustrated – this isn’t academia, and if you were trying to act as though it were, you sorely lack in references. Wiki is perfectly acceptable for day to day life.

Again, a random reference to academia does not make for a call for scholarly discussion. Learn to banter? /shrug

Rutee.1058:

They connected the games through… the wiki? Not EotN, the actual expansion?

Uhh…both? Did I ever say it was the only way?

Rutee.1058:

You’re confusing the presence of humor with the absence of seriousness. Lord of the Rings has its fair share of humor, even before Peter Jackson got a hold of it. Few would dispute that it is a serious setting. If you’d like to say that there’s mood whiplash in going from Lord Faren’s amazitude to, well, almost anything else in the plot, I won’t argue with you (Or, for a more stark example, Skrittsburgh. You fend off apocalyptic demons, slavers, and deranged scientists to find… skrittsburgh). But to say that it isn’t serious because there’s comic relief? No.

Nah, if anything I’m confusing the presence of an interesting debate with the absence of objectivity. If you want me to cite examples of sillyness, you’re going to need to give me awhile to acquire the exact information…you seem to be adamant about proper evidence and all. You still didn’t answer my question though: do you really think this game has a more serious tone than GW1?

Rutee.1058:

Also, Tyria is not literally drenched in cotton candied fluff. Although if it were, nobody would ever go hungry again, because there would be cotton candy everywhere. Literally: Does not mean what you apparently think it means.

Aww, sweet. A sarcastic and a literalist. Where was this earlier? /sadface

Rutee.1058:

If by ‘notable exception’ you mean ‘the bulk of the personal stories, most renown hearts, and numerous events and meta-events, as well as the Living Story, the dungeon plots, and the like’ then yes. Even Metrica Province has friggin’ Chernobyl in it. The only thing I can recall with a particularly childish plot offhand was the Super Adventure Box – and fake retro isn’t generally for kids.

Hmm, I’m not sure we are playing the same game. The personal story is fairly decent; the renown hearts, while being a great gameplay mechanic, are mostly lighthearted and trivial; the DE’s are barely better; and the LS…are you kidding? I think I stopped trying with those when the Flame & Frost bosses did a Ginyu Force pose-off before the engagement.

You’re right on one point though, humans would lose bad in an attempt to retake Ascalon. It’s just not feasible given the Charr entrenchment and how far the human supply lines would have to be for that. The Asura and Sylvari wouldn’t help, that’s for sure. And the Norn probably don’t give a darn. It’s not a viable option for this game.

i would fight to get loot

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

No…

But I will fight for clean Ascalon from vengeful spirit and write new history.
New first step about human and Charr.
And finish to rebuild new ascalon and new black citidel on ascalon place.
(Black citidel NEVER finish repair look at NPC around)
It’s would be ultimate goal.

I would fight for Ascalon, although at this point I don’t think either race would find it worthwhile to do so. But the fact of the matter is, humans are in desperate need to expand again, the Charr are not and the war on Ascalon was a matter of principal than a matter of necessity all those years ago. I think the only people we’d be fighting would be whatever is keeping it infested with ghosts, there’s no reason why the Charr & humans can’t both equally claim it and rebuild it together. In fact, i think that would be epic to take part in.

Why apparently is purging the ghostly population of Ascalon the evident course of action for everyone? Do the ghosts not have feelings or memories?

Tsume Koi - Daugther of a normal common worker from Ascalon. When she born, her parents decided to move to Kryta to give her possibly the best protection from harm. They were scared of charr.
She raised in nothin more than hatred to charr, but when she was still a child, human kingdom traded a valuable charr symbol for peace. Since there, charr were seen in Divinity’s Reach and so Tsume’s curiocity was growing. She was always bit strange – happy, but busy. She loved to build stuff. And charr’s technology, their machines awoke her true love – engineering.
She never hated charrs. And the more she was learning about them, she loved them even more. Once, she had an opportunity to travel to Black Citadel – as yet young engineer. First night was spent on conversation with Iron Legion’s engineers. Her hunger of knowledge, how to build good, powerful, unbreakable devices… with her love to powders, bullets and bomb/grenade shells made an wonderful combination.

She would never EVER raise a hand against a charr that doesn’t want to kill her. Peace she lives in is something, what she loves. Opportunity to study charr’s technology, live with them, share her own expirience…
Tsume would even try to stop separatists. She hates racists.

Bazompora.2635:

Why apparently is purging the ghostly population of Ascalon the evident course of action for everyone? Do the ghosts not have feelings or memories?

With the exception of certain powerful ghosts like Adelbern and his champions, it seems that most ghosts are simply echoes of past lives, trapped forever in a moment in time thinking that they are at war when in fact the world has moved on. Most ghosts seem to see all other creatures as Charr and attack accordingly, suggesting that they are either unable or incapable of processing new information and forming new memories and feelings.

Putting the ghosts to rest is, in fact, the kindest thing we can do for them. (It doesn’t need to be through violence either. If there was some magical ritual that could undo the Foefire and free all the ghosts to move on to the Mists and their afterlife, I’d do it in a heartbeat.)

Zaxares.5419:

Putting the ghosts to rest is, in fact, the kindest thing we can do for them. (It doesn’t need to be through violence either. If there was some magical ritual that could undo the Foefire and free all the ghosts to move on to the Mists and their afterlife, I’d do it in a heartbeat.)

To unbind the spirits from the Foefire curse would be the most merciful course of action, yes – if only it were an option already.
However, I can’t see how making them relive their losses and fatal confrontations on the way to obliteration would be the next kind alternative. If they can’t yet come to rest in the mist through a non-violent sending, wouldn’t cordoning off Ascalon City and its hinterlands (essentially creating a ghost reserve where they can patroll about in their tirelessness) at least leave them their peace in the mean time?

That’s actually a really good idea. Unfortunately, there are two major problems I can foresee with that:

1. The Charr would never abandon Ascalon. This is perhaps a failing on their part, but if you were suddenly ordered to emigrate to another country because they were turning your homeland into a nature preserve after you’d lived your entire life there, I imagine you wouldn’t accept it.

2. It’s unclear if Adelbern would be content to leave things at that. Left to his own devices, he might rally the ghosts and invade the Charr lands, or even Kryta (he was strongly against the Krytans too, having warred against them back during the Guild Wars). Were Adelbern somehow removed from the picture, having a ghostly quarantine zone might be feasible.

The Ascalonian ghosts were meant to symbolize the GW1 playerbase and gameplay. It’s ANet’s way of “putting them out to pasture.”

Thats why my guilds name is “Blades of the Ruined King” of Ascalon

Obsidian.1328:

The Ascalonian ghosts were meant to symbolize the GW1 playerbase and gameplay. It’s ANet’s way of “putting them out to pasture.”

Not necessarily the case. They have said time and time again they’re working on many projects both broadening the current game world, changing it in already existing “vanilla” regions as well as pushing out to other places.They will be doing things that bring people back to, and rotating between new, and old regions. Ascalon is a perfect opportunity for this. Look at the continued expansion of humanity out into the formerly Ascalonian regions with new settlements & fortresses being built with the help of the Charr a la the treaty. The Charr have little use for the region on their own, the humans have need for expansion as more and more humans gravitate into Kryta, overcrowding it. There’s a lot of potential story and content to be developed and played over the years in this region. I don’t foresee Ascalon being a human-only region anymore but probably more of a jointly built up and governed place between Humans & Charr.

I was being somewhat sarcastic…

Did anyone else notice that the wiki says Queen Jennah is now the regent of Ascalon? I never really noticed before, but then again I may not of paid all that much attention before lol.

I have already discussed this in my recent Ebonhawke post in the Lore section of the Forums. Essentially yes. I would fight for Human Ascalon under the Duke of Ebonhawke’s banner as my rightful King.

Not Jennah who is the ruler of an allied kingdom – Kryta.

Queen Jennah is Regent of (Human) Ascalon – http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Jennah? This has to be a mistake. If not its should be reversed since that honor belongs to the Duke of Ebonhawke – as per a recent post of mine.

Also for convenience: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Wade_Samuelsson – clear states Samuelsson’s lineage – thus rightful current claim to the Ascalonian Crown. And thus he is the title holder – King of Ascalon as per events of GW2!

Dave.1534:

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

There’s bigger lizards to fry, so no. Once the dragons are gone, we’ll only have to wait for the Charr to start a brawl.

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

I thought hunting Charr, destroying armies of their recruits and levelling their ‘fortresses’ right on the doorstep of their inner homelands was fine for revenge. Not to mention helping them with their own feuding and bloodshed.

If Queen Jennah finally waged war to take back Ascalonian soil that might be enough to finally bring me back to actually playing this game in spite of all of its failures up to this point (aka Horrible new lore, mainly living story, horrible class balance, non-existent pvp, etc.).

I would literally live in the zone if I could kill PC Character charrs. Would love every minute of it. It is all I would do day in and out. I would never trier of killing the charr. I use to farm the northern wall in Guild Wars 1 and I would gladly do the same in Guild Wars 2.

Charr Hide Armor: Check

Hammer of Charrslaying: Check

Ready to retake Ascalon for the honor and glory of humankind!

To be honest, I could see Queen Jennah trying to reclaim Lion’s Arch before Ascalon. Lion’s Arch belonged to Kryta, after all, and is now under the control of Pirates who took advantage of Dragon-Created natural disasters to take the city for themselves.

However, while the Centaur remain a problem, I can’t see Kryta launching any campaigns to reclaim any lost territory. I could perhaps see Cantha doing some conquest though, assuming its massive population is still massive.

Tl:dr…
Butttt

Jennah is the Queen of Kryta, not of Ascalon. Consider that Kryta already has MASSIVE centaur, bandit/white mantle problems and it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for her to send troops away from protecting her land to go try and reclaim a kingdom that she has no claim to…

Like Vexander point’s out – Lions Arch is more likely, but even then that is certainly not going to happen. It doesn’t make sense to wage war against allies given the state of the world, even if they have appropriated your land…

In this thread: People forgetting that Ascalon was originally the Charr’s land and Humans kicked them out of it. I don’t understand why any of you seem to think it’s the Human’s right to take it back?

Forgetting that, however, I don’t think you guys realise just what you’d be getting the Human race into if you went to war with the Charr. You can just about cope with the Centaurs, how do you think you could cope fight against a complete militaristic race that is vastly technologically superior to both the Centaurs AND Humans. Next, you have to consider that Charr pretty much have numbers superiority too. There’s probably at least as many Charr in the world at the moment as Humans, NOT INCLUDING the vast Blood Legion armies they still have in the Blood Legion homelands. I’m sorry, but a war with the Charr would not go well for the Humans in any way, without the help of the other races. Then you have to consider that if the Humans start the war to get Ascalon back, why would any other race even feel obligated to help?

TL;DR: Even if Humans had some legitimate reason to fight the Charr to reclaim Ascalon, there’s absolutely no way you’d be able to beat them.

Yes!! I would gladly join to re-take Ascalon, again!
I would love to help ghosts of Ascalon to get their eternity sleep and rebuild Ascalon.

I just love Ebonhawke.. it reminds me so much of Ascalon..
Love their armors and weapons aswell.