Guild Wars 2

Lions Arch is not allied with the Centaurs. Where on earth did you get that idea O_o.

Also the second part isn’t really true.
Hylek for example are a problem only seen in the Maguuma – none of the races other than the Asura or Sylvari need to fight them. The Ghosts of Ascalon are strictly a Charr problem. – Yes the other races still fight these enemies in game, but they also fight the Centaurs in the same way…

Levetty.1279:

Lions Arch is allied with the Centaurs, that is more then enough reason for Kryta to stop turning a blind eye to the pirates who are squatting on the grave of their old capitol and terrorizing the nearby farms and take control once Scarlet is gone.

Lion’s Arch has a treaty with the Centaurs, just like the Charr and humans have a treaty with one another. How I understand this treaty so long as the Centaur do not actively harm or otherwise hinder Lionguard protected caravans, the Lionguard will not attack the Centaur. This itself is not reason enough for Divinity’s Reach to seize Lion’s Arch.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Levetty.1279:

Lions Arch is allied with the Centaurs, that is more then enough reason for Kryta to stop turning a blind eye to the pirates who are squatting on the grave of their old capitol and terrorizing the nearby farms and take control once Scarlet is gone.

Lion’s Arch has a treaty with the Centaurs, just like the Charr and humans have a treaty with one another. How I understand this treaty so long as the Centaur do not actively harm or otherwise hinder Lionguard protected caravans, the Lionguard will not attack the Centaur. This itself is not reason enough for Divinity’s Reach to seize Lion’s Arch.

Considering the centaurs often ignore the treaty anyway . . .

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Considering the centaurs often ignore the treaty anyway . . .

Doesn’t mean Lion’s Arch has to aid Divinity’s Reach, their purpose is to ensure trade flows not that a foreign nation is secured. Besides why waste their resources on fighting a race that may one day become a client? Isn’t that what we adventurers are for? We the deniable specialists of Tyria that undertake tasks nations would find to risky to send their own forces to handle.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Obsidian.1328:

Nah, that was retconned.

From reading their wiki article I don’t see it not stating they owned Ascalon in fact it states because of the humans with the aid of their gods forced the Charr to surrender the southern lands of their territory..

I didn’t say it wasn’t their territory.

Obsidian.1328:

I didn’t say it wasn’t their territory.

I misunderstood that you were implying Ascalon wasn’t part of the Charr homeland.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Lion’s Arch has a treaty with the Centaurs, just like the Charr and humans have a treaty with one another. How I understand this treaty so long as the Centaur do not actively harm or otherwise hinder Lionguard protected caravans, the Lionguard will not attack the Centaur. This itself is not reason enough for Divinity’s Reach to seize Lion’s Arch.

You mean Lion’s Arch HAD a treaty with the centaurs. LA is gone, and i do not shed a tear for it. Only for the few remains of old LA that are getting destroyed by Scarlet’s drill. LA was able to keep its independence because Kryta was too busy elsewhere (and because it was meant to be a meeting place for all species, game mechanic wise). LA’s position has drastically changed, i would not be surprised if the pirate council will be forced to negotiate a…less favourable agreement with Kryta now.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

I misunderstood that you were implying Ascalon wasn’t part of the Charr homeland.

Ascalon wasn’t part of the Charr homelands in GW1, that was changed for GW2. The Charr originally came from east of the Blazeridge mountains, and take a look at the GW1 EotN map – it shows the Charr homelands, and it is not Ascalon.

People also conveniently ignore the fact that humanity had been living in Ascalon for a thousand years. If that is not enough to have turned Ascalon into human land then today’s Ascalon is not Charr land either. The Charr’s hold on Ascalon is not justified by a moral claim to the land, but because they conquered it.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Obsidian.1328:

I didn’t say it wasn’t their territory.

I misunderstood that you were implying Ascalon wasn’t part of the Charr homeland.

It wasn’t.

Obsidian.1328:

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Obsidian.1328:

I didn’t say it wasn’t their territory.

I misunderstood that you were implying Ascalon wasn’t part of the Charr homeland.

It wasn’t.

I meant I misunderstood you were implying it was a part of the Charr lands. Odd I could of swore I typed was and not wasn’t when I made that earlier post…but then again I do have clumsy fingers.

Frosch.7809:

People also conveniently ignore the fact that humanity had been living in Ascalon for a thousand years. If that is not enough to have turned Ascalon into human land then today’s Ascalon is not Charr land either. The Charr’s hold on Ascalon is not justified by a moral claim to the land, but because they conquered it.

Can’t speak for the others but I’m not ignoring the fact the humans of Ascalon have occupied that area for at least a millennium prior to the war with the Charr. The Charr did claim the land prior to the humans settling the area and thus their claims are as legitimate now as the humans. The Charr do have one thing that seems to be lacking in the old Ascalonians that remained as well as certain players who are for this action, common sense. When the humans first invaded, the Charr didn’t blindly throw themselves at the humans. On the contrary they retreated in order to strike from a more defensible position. They searched for their own gods to counter the human gods, which led to them developing scientific based technologies to replace said gods.

Humanity, for the time being, is not in the position to strike at the Charr. They only have one fortress in that particular region, to my knowledge anyways, as well as various problems. It is wiser to accept Ascalon as a defeat and focus on the current problems.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Can’t speak for the others but I’m not ignoring the fact the humans of Ascalon have occupied that area for at least a millennium prior to the war with the Charr. The Charr did claim the land prior to the humans settling the area and thus their claims are as legitimate now as the humans. The Charr do have one thing that seems to be lacking in the old Ascalonians that remained as well as certain players who are for this action, common sense. When the humans first invaded, the Charr didn’t blindly throw themselves at the humans. On the contrary they retreated in order to strike from a more defensible position. They searched for their own gods to counter the human gods, which led to them developing scientific based technologies to replace said gods.

Humanity, for the time being, is not in the position to strike at the Charr. They only have one fortress in that particular region, to my knowledge anyways, as well as various problems. It is wiser to accept Ascalon as a defeat and focus on the current problems.

A renewed conflict for Ascalon seems to be very unlikely. Players become the commander of the Pact and as such they would most likely be in a situation to negotiate, and not fight for one or the other side.

I disagree that players who would fight to reclaim Ascalon lack common sense though. If given a choice i would fight, too. One should not easily forget all the things the Charr did, and until recently, while the human conquest of Ascalon was 1250 years ago. Humans never ate Charr for example.

The citizens of Ebonhawke have lived under siege till 2 or so years ago, it is understandable that they stay distrustful of the Charr. Especially since they still have to defend against Charr Renegades. The ones among humanity whose behaviour is not acceptable are the Separatists, but they appear to be a minority.

And trying to regain lost territory for centuries by waging war against human Ascalon, or laying siege to Ebonhawke for 250 years is not really showing any common sense on the Charr’s side either imo, but GW1’s Charr were simply different – they wanted to eradicate humanity, and not just reclaim Ascalon.

The Charr of GW2 would most likely negotiate, like they are currently doing with Kryta. But this is ingame “reality”, different yet from the background information about the Charr, which shows them in a way that it is more likely that they would start another war if not for all their problems, because conflict is an essential part of their culture. But as i said, “reality” ingame is different.

Dead is dead. So maybe the humans did not eat Charr (do you have evidence that supports that Charr ate humans though), but they still killed them. Eating generally happens after murdering, and if not then it’s simply another way of murdering – are you trying to argue that it is worse than slaughtering with swords and magic? Besides they aren’t the same race, humans eat all kinds of animals (personally I think that it’s horrific but this isn’t the place to get into it).

The Charr in game are not different from their background infromation. You’re forgetting one crucial fact – the dragons. The Charr would still be warring against the humans if the dragons hadn’t come along. But the threat of the Branded on Charr lands and the threat that all of the dragons pose to every single race of Tyria has necessitated alliances. Throughout the game the human-charr alliance is presented as uneasy, you only have to listen to ambient dialogue in the Ascalon area or talk to the Charr around Ebonhawke to realise that a lot of them are not that happy about it.

Frosch.7809:

I disagree that players who would fight to reclaim Ascalon lack common sense though. If given a choice i would fight, too. One should not easily forget all the things the Charr did, and until recently, while the human conquest of Ascalon was 1250 years ago. Humans never ate Charr for example.

Actually it is a prime example of lack of common sense. Humanity’s overall strength in lore is drastically weaker than it was two and half centuries ago. Every battle the humans participate in is more lives lost. It would be in humanity’s best interests to allocate all of their resources wisely. There is no point in retaking Ascalon if the Elder Dragons will simply destroy it. Neither is there any point in retaking Ascalon if it leaves humanity weaker as a whole. As for the last portion of your argument, no humanity didn’t eat Charr but they did make armor out of their hides and probably even decorated their homes and Guild Halls with them. Humanity has committed just as many unforgivable atrocities as the Charr.

Frosch.7809:

IThe citizens of Ebonhawke have lived under siege till 2 or so years ago, it is understandable that they stay distrustful of the Charr. Especially since they still have to defend against Charr Renegades. The ones among humanity whose behaviour is not acceptable are the Separatists, but they appear to be a minority.

I disagree with the minority part, I believe they just the portion that doesn’t like the plan of playing nice for the time being. Queen Jennah’s words from the Jubilee and the fact the Watch Knight was made to appear as Rytlock, a high ranking Charr, suggests the humans will resume the war once the Elder Dragon threat has been neutralized and no other threat has arisen to contest their rule.

Frosch.7809:

IAnd trying to regain lost territory for centuries by waging war against human Ascalon, or laying siege to Ebonhawke for 250 years is not really showing any common sense on the Charr’s side either imo, but GW1’s Charr were simply different – they wanted to eradicate humanity, and not just reclaim Ascalon.

The Charr struck from a better position than the humans, the Charr homelands weren’t ravaged like Ascalon, they were well supplied, they had defensible positions, and they have a stronger morale. They were slowly gaining ground while the humans were slowly losing it. But they weren’t just fighting humans for those two and half centuries. There were other foes they fought, such as the Flame Legion. If the Charr had two and half centuries to simply focus on Ascalon, they would of eventually won through attrition as Ascalonians already had suffered grievous blows to their population thanks to the Searing.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Considering the centaurs often ignore the treaty anyway . . .

Doesn’t mean Lion’s Arch has to aid Divinity’s Reach, their purpose is to ensure trade flows not that a foreign nation is secured. Besides why waste their resources on fighting a race that may one day become a client? Isn’t that what we adventurers are for? We the deniable specialists of Tyria that undertake tasks nations would find to risky to send their own forces to handle.

Oh I wasn’t questioning it, merely saying the centaurs don’t care as much as Lion’s Arch’s Lionguard had. The Lionguard weren’t interested in picking a fight with the centaurs, more on maintaining the trade network.

At least that’s what I read into it.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Dead is dead. So maybe the humans did not eat Charr (do you have evidence that supports that Charr ate humans though), but they still killed them.

Take a look at this thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/lore/charr/Do-Charrs-eat-humans/first#post1956694

Yes, eating a sentient being after killing it is worse imo. Killing a monster in GW1 is no big deal, and there the Charr are just monsters. Don’t confuse action and reaction, it is legitimate to defend yourself against someone trying to kill you in a fantasy game.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

The Charr in game are not different from their background infromation. You’re forgetting one crucial fact – the dragons. The Charr would still be warring against the humans if the dragons hadn’t come along. But the threat of the Branded on Charr lands and the threat that all of the dragons pose to every single race of Tyria has necessitated alliances. Throughout the game the human-charr alliance is presented as uneasy, you only have to listen to ambient dialogue in the Ascalon area or talk to the Charr around Ebonhawke to realise that a lot of them are not that happy about it.

Okay, so i can still see the Charr as bloodthirsty warmongers in GW2? One of my characters is a Charr Warrior, and my personal experience is different.

Of course there are those among both species that are not happy about it, forgetting about old grievances takes a long time. But which side got more reasons to still cling to it? Probably the side that had to defend till recently.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

There is no point in retaking Ascalon if the Elder Dragons will simply destroy it. Neither is there any point in retaking Ascalon if it leaves humanity weaker as a whole.

It is not a matter of logic if people would fight to reclaim Ascalon or not, but a matter of the heart.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

As for the last portion of your argument, no humanity didn’t eat Charr but they did make armor out of their hides and probably even decorated their homes and Guild Halls with them. Humanity has committed just as many unforgivable atrocities as the Charr.

I beg to differ here, in GW1 the Charr are simply evil and humanity is defending itself against a foe that wants to eradicate them all. Some things were retconned for GW2, for example the charr eating humans. The Charr were turned from monsters into characters, simply put. GW1 was “black and white” about it, GW2 is different concerning the Charr. Do you feel bad about taking hooves as trophies from centaurs? Or Krait skins? I don’t. Neither did i feel bad about getting Charr hides as trophies in GW1.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

I disagree with the minority part, I believe they just the portion that doesn’t like the plan of playing nice for the time being. Queen Jennah’s words from the Jubilee and the fact the Watch Knight was made to appear as Rytlock, a high ranking Charr, suggests the humans will resume the war once the Elder Dragon threat has been neutralized and no other threat has arisen to contest their rule.

Anise did this to shock Logan, it is not an indication that Kryta plans to start a war against the Charr. Don’t try to turn the Charr into victims while they have been the aggressors for the last 1250 years.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

The Charr struck from a better position than the humans, the Charr homelands weren’t ravaged like Ascalon

So you agree that Ascalon was not part of the Charr homelands?

Darkbattlemage.9612:

If the Charr had two and half centuries to simply focus on Ascalon, they would of eventually won through attrition as Ascalonians already had suffered grievous blows to their population thanks to the Searing.

The Charr were held back for generations by the Great Northern Wall and could not overcome it without help from the Titans, and through them, from Abbadon. In GW1 there is no sign that the charr would eventually have won, one can actually find evidence for the opposite, like the quest “The last day dawns” where you beat the Charr “army” (it’s some Charr representing their army) plus their masters the Titans. GW1 is actually a stalemate, with neither side gaining the upper hand. It was changed for GW2.

Frosch.7809:

It is not a matter of logic if people would fight to reclaim Ascalon or not, but a matter of the heart.

Actually it is a matter of logic, because humanity has more pressing matters. If all it took was heart then there would be no Elder Dragons, no Centaur, and no Ministry trying to usurp the queen.

Frosch.7809:

I beg to differ here, in GW1 the Charr are simply evil and humanity is defending itself against a foe that wants to eradicate them all. Some things were retconned for GW2, for example the charr eating humans. The Charr were turned from monsters into characters, simply put. GW1 was “black and white” about it, GW2 is different concerning the Charr. Do you feel bad about taking hooves as trophies from centaurs? Or Krait skins? I don’t. Neither did i feel bad about getting Charr hides as trophies in GW1.

You needn’t beg, you are entitled to your own opinion. However I should advise you attempting to turn the argument on me in the method you appear to be using, is pointless. As I have said both Charr and humanity have committed atrocities to the other, whether or not either side cares is a matter of personal preference. Even after learning the lands were originally theirs I didn’t feel sorry for what my Ascalonian characters had done, nor did I feel the Charr were monsters. Both sides had legitimate reasons to fight, both sides used that to commit atrocities to the other, and both sides refuse to yield. I do not expect the Charr to apologize or to provide compensation for the Ascalonians they eaten and I would say the Charr don’t expect similar from me for the hides I took from their dead. In the end the Charr proved to be the better fighters, as the Ascalonians who refused to retreat are now ghosts forever trapped on Tyria and forced to forever war with the Charr.

Frosch.7809:

Anise did this to shock Logan, it is not an indication that Kryta plans to start a war against the Charr. Don’t try to turn the Charr into victims while they have been the aggressors for the last 1250 years.

So I should believe it was coincidental that the queen mentioned about humanity’s enemies right before the transformation? Also I’m not turning the Charr into victims, that would be insulting them. I however an pointing out how the Queen’s Jubilee seems to indicate humanity’s future plans for the Charr after the Elder Dragons have been defeated.

Frosch.7809:

So you agree that Ascalon was not part of the Charr homelands?

No I am not agreeing that Ascalon wasn’t part of the Charr homelands. The lands that the kingdom of Ascalon occupied are part of the Charr homelands, however they had became contested due to the human aggressors. The Charr simply found other means to counter the humans advantages and pushed them back. Ascalon’s fate was of its own doing, not the Charr’s. Foefire didn’t have to be called upon, but it was. Those unfortunate souls have only themselves to blame for their fate as they choose to listen to a King who stubbornness overruled reason.

Frosch.7809:

The Charr were held back for generations by the Great Northern Wall and could not overcome it without help from the Titans, and through them, from Abbadon. In GW1 there is no sign that the charr would eventually have won, one can actually find evidence for the opposite, like the quest “The last day dawns” where you beat the Charr “army” (it’s some Charr representing their army) plus their masters the Titans. GW1 is actually a stalemate, with neither side gaining the upper hand. It was changed for GW2.

You do understand the two and half centuries take place following the conclusion of Eyes of the North? This means the Searing had already occurred thus the Great Northern Wall had already fallen.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Actually it is a matter of logic, because humanity has more pressing matters. If all it took was heart then there would be no Elder Dragons, no Centaur, and no Ministry trying to usurp the queen.

Be so kind as to look at the title of the thread. The question is aimed at players, not ingame NPC’s. Those who would fight to reclaim Ascalon decide so with their hearts.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

However I should advise you attempting to turn the argument on me in the method you appear to be using, is pointless. As I have said both Charr and humanity have committed atrocities to the other, whether or not either side cares is a matter of personal preference. Even after learning the lands were originally theirs I didn’t feel sorry for what my Ascalonian characters had done, nor did I feel the Charr were monsters. Both sides had legitimate reasons to fight, both sides used that to commit atrocities to the other, and both sides refuse to yield. I do not expect the Charr to apologize or to provide compensation for the Ascalonians they eaten and I would say the Charr don’t expect similar from me for the hides I took from their dead. In the end the Charr proved to be the better fighters, as the Ascalonians who refused to retreat are now ghosts forever trapped on Tyria and forced to forever war with the Charr.

To make this short, there are no atrocities committed by humanity agains the charr in either GW1 or 2. Ascalon was no longer Charr land after a thousand years of humanity living there. It is Charr land again today. The Charr could not conquer human Ascalon without the help of the Titans, which does not exactly make them the “better” fighters.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

So I should believe it was coincidental that the queen mentioned about humanity’s enemies right before the transformation? Also I’m not turning the Charr into victims, that would be insulting them. I however an pointing out how the Queen’s Jubilee seems to indicate humanity’s future plans for the Charr after the Elder Dragons have been defeated.

You are exactly doing this, trying to turn the Charr into victims by implying that Kryta plans to attack them in the future. Maybe ask Lady Althea about which side was the victim.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

You do understand the two and half centuries take place following the conclusion of Eyes of the North? This means the Searing had already occurred thus the Great Northern Wall had already fallen.

250 years during which the Charr could not take Ebonhawke despite their best efforts. It shows what the Charr are capable of on their own without the help from some Titans.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Ascalon’s fate was of its own doing, not the Charr’s. Foefire didn’t have to be called upon, but it was. Those unfortunate souls have only themselves to blame for their fate as they choose to listen to a King who stubbornness overruled reason.

Wow. I think i got the measure of you now. Took me some time.

Again you are confusing cause and effect. The responsibility for the Foefire lays solely with the Charr.

I’ve had this discussion before, it ended with the other guy calling me a racist for lack of further arguments from his side. Therefore i will just end my contribution to this discussion here. Feel free to reply and have a nice day.

Humanity had the land for some years after they drove the charr out of it. The charr had inhabited it since the times of the forgotten.

Charr ancestry in the land is far greater than the short stint humans have had in the land. Humans are the new comers. Not the charr who were long ago established.

As humanity did with the charr in the past, humanity was driven out of Ascalon by the charr. Tit for tat.

To say that humans have always been in the land of Ascalon isn’t based on the matter of fact, feelings and issues of the heart aside.

What will humans challenge the charr on for right to the land? War? Charr love that option! And the charr won.

Heritage? Charr heritage in the land is vastly superior to that of humanities. Charr win out by war and by heritage. It’s their land.

By some incredible miracle of diplomacy and the fact that charr respect worthy opponents, humanity gained a small solace.

A place for themselves in Ebonhawke, Ascalon.

Charr are even helping with your new problem out there (ogres). Seriously. It’s not going to get much better than that beyond making the entire accord permanent.

Though if enough yahoo humans ever get into power (or yahoo charr for that matter), it can certainly get a whole hell of a lot worse though.

Frosch.7809:

To make this short, there are no atrocities committed by humanity agains the charr in either GW1 or 2. Ascalon was no longer Charr land after a thousand years of humanity living there. It is Charr land again today. The Charr could not conquer human Ascalon without the help of the Titans, which does not exactly make them the “better” fighters.

If a predatory species eating their slain enemies is considered a atrocity than humanity using the hides of their enemies to craft armor is also a atrocity. Also seeing how Ascalon needed the aid of the gods to conquer the land and then the wall to hold it, I say the charr are indeed the better fighters.

Frosch.7809:

You are exactly doing this, trying to turn the Charr into victims by implying that Kryta plans to attack them in the future. Maybe ask Lady Althea about which side was the victim.

Actually I’m not. I’m just pointing out that it is likely that Kryta seems to still consider the Charr as enemies. When two enemies are forced to work together against a common threat, the most logical solution is to expect the other side to betray the other when it is more convenient for them. Seeing how the Renegades and Separatists are relatively allowed free reign, it can be assumed that both Charr and Humans plan to resume the war once all other threats have been neutralized.

Frosch.7809:

Wow. I think i got the measure of you now. Took me some time.

Oh and what would that be?

Frosch.7809:

Again you are confusing cause and effect. The responsibility for the Foefire lays solely with the Charr.

In both versions of the tale the blame lays with King Adelbern.

In the Human version he was the one who struck the Claws of Khan-Ur with Magdaer , not the other way around. I’ll admit that he not entirely to blame as he had no idea such a phenomena would occur when the two weapons met. Yet after rereading about the Foefire, I feel this account is falsified due to the circumstances leading to the phenomena.

In the Charr’s version he unleashed Foefire upon both humans and Charr in a moment of madness. This version seems what most likely happen due to having more corroborating evidence to support it.

Frosch.7809:

I’ve had this discussion before, it ended with the other guy calling me a racist for lack of further arguments from his side. Therefore i will just end my contribution to this discussion here. Feel free to reply and have a nice day.

I am not the other person, I will not resort to petty name calling. If I truly can’t counter your argument I am more than willing to concede and admit defeat. However for the time being there seems to be plenty to discuss.

CETheLucid.3964:

Heritage? Charr heritage in the land is vastly superior to that of humanities. Charr win out by war and by heritage. It’s their land.

It’s their land again, before that it was human land. I can actually live with how things are now, it’s a game after all. Should it happen ingame that there will be another conflict between humanity and the Charr i know for which side i would fight, but given the theme of cooperation between nations and species it will most likely not happen.

I am sure that there are enough old GW1 players, me among them, who got the feeling that their efforts in GW1 were for naught for the sake of turning the Charr from monsters into a playable species.

The Charr hold the land through military might, not because they got a right to hold it because it was already theirs 1250 years ago. If such ancient claims would still be valid in our real world plenty of nations would cease to exist. And the Grawl would have the strongest claim to Ascalon by the way.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

If a predatory species eating their slain enemies is considered a atrocity than humanity using the hides of their enemies to craft armor is also a atrocity. Also seeing how Ascalon needed the aid of the gods to conquer the land and then the wall to hold it, I say the charr are indeed the better fighters.

You can see using the hides of evil monsters as armor as an atrocity. By no means does this compare to Charr actions of genocide, ecocide, eating humans, using their skulls as ornaments, burning people alive etc.

Humanity was told by the gods to take the lands for them, if anything then humanity helped the gods and not the other way around. Charr are physically superior, making a human able to defeat a Charr the better fighter.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Actually I’m not. I’m just pointing out that it is likely that Kryta seems to still consider the Charr as enemies. When two enemies are forced to work together against a common threat, the most logical solution is to expect the other side to betray the other when it is more convenient for them. Seeing how the Renegades and Separatists are relatively allowed free reign, it can be assumed that both Charr and Humans plan to resume the war once all other threats have been neutralized.

Why shouldn’t Kryta consider the Charr a possible enemy? They enjoy war too much, and went on with it even after the Foefire, till just recently. Though it was Jennah who started the peace negotiations. The Charr enjoy conflict far more than humanity, so it’s more likely that they will look for a new war to fight, should their current enemies be defeated.

It is possible that either or both sides plan to renew the war in the future, but by then they will have learned to cooperate, through standing up to common enemies, and see how futile a new war would be.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Oh and what would that be?

I have become wary of discussion concerning this topic, it can turn ugly very quickly, like i saw it happen several times in the past. You seem to prefer to side with the Charr, i prefer to side with humanity.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

In both versions of the tale the blame lays with King Adelbern.

The chain of events started with the Searing, with the human population of Ascalon being innocent victims. The Charr caused it, they bear the responsibility for the Foefire. The Charr themselves should understand the determination of no giving up. I do not approve of what Adelbern did, but i do not pity the Charr either for having to deal with the ghosts. Their ghost problem is entirely self-made. If anything i pity the ghosts.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

I am not the other person, I will not resort to petty name calling. If I truly can’t counter your argument I am more than willing to concede and admit defeat. However for the time being there seems to be plenty to discuss.

I see that you are not like that, but i do not see the need to continue the discussion to the point where one or the other has to “admit defeat”. There are different opinions, but not “right” or “wrong” ones.

Frosch.7809:

You can see using the hides of evil monsters as armor as an atrocity. By no means does this compare to Charr actions of genocide, ecocide, eating humans, using their skulls as ornaments, burning people alive etc.

Do we have any definite proof that the humans didn’t commit similar actions? The Searing left the once green lands as barren wastelands where water has been turned into tar, or otherwise undrinkable to humans. Food would be a scarcity, the Charr are considered to be nothing more than animals by some of the players so who to say the humans didn’t serve up Charr for dinner? I could see military units stationed in regions plagued with heavy fighting on both sides, yet receive meager amounts of supplies, using every available resource at their disposal. My point is both sides were in the right for fighting the war, but both sides used those reasons to commit atrocities upon the other.

Frosch.7809:

Humanity was told by the gods to take the lands for them, if anything then humanity helped the gods and not the other way around. Charr are physically superior, making a human able to defeat a Charr the better fighter.

I disagree that humans helped the gods, it more that the gods saw their favorite children unable to physically match the Charr in battle so lent their aid to turn the tide of war in their favor.

Frosch.7809:

Why shouldn’t Kryta consider the Charr a possible enemy? They enjoy war too much, and went on with it even after the Foefire, till just recently. Though it was Jennah who started the peace negotiations. The Charr enjoy conflict far more than humanity, so it’s more likely that they will look for a new war to fight, should their current enemies be defeated.

As I said it is logical to still consider one another enemies however it is not logical to invite said enemy to a festive event and announce you still consider them an enemy, especially when you still trying to broker peace. This event, if it were taken place in a true living world, would have undoubtedly damaged the peace negotiations as Rox would of reported it to Rytlock.

Frosch.7809:

It is possible that either or both sides plan to renew the war in the future, but by then they will have learned to cooperate, through standing up to common enemies, and see how futile a new war would be.

The Charr might but I doubt the humans would learn. King Adelbern refused to lead his people from Ascalon to Kryta, where they could rebuild their strength instead of expending the last remnants on a desperate attempt to hold what little they held.

Frosch.7809:

The chain of events started with the Searing, with the human population of Ascalon being innocent victims. The Charr caused it, they bear the responsibility for the Foefire. The Charr themselves should understand the determination of no giving up. I do not approve of what Adelbern did, but i do not pity the Charr either for having to deal with the ghosts. Their ghost problem is entirely self-made. If anything i pity the ghosts.

Actually the chain of events started with the human gods aiding the humans, which allowed the humans to emerge victorious in the battles fought with the Charr. This led to the Charr to retreat further into their homelands and seek out their own “gods” which they could call upon to counter the human gods. This search led them to find the Titans and call upon the Titans power to destroy the wall. So the Searing was just another link in the chain just like the Foefire.

As for the Charr’s ghost problem being caused by them, not exactly King Adelbern still holds all the blame for that. I do believe it has gone on long enough, let the spirits of the past finally find peace. The war they fight has long been lost and there is no need for them to continually be denied the chance of finding the Hall of Heroes. Grenth must not be pleased either, knowing there are so many spirits roaming Tyria that he can’t claim due to the current situation.

Frosch.7809:

I see that you are not like that, but i do not see the need to continue the discussion to the point where one or the other has to “admit defeat”. There are different opinions, but not “right” or “wrong” ones.

I wasn’t suggesting the debate had to have a definite end just that if I found myself truly unable to counter with a well thought out argument I would gladly admit it.

I’ll put in my 2 cents.

• Not sure why the Charr Hide armor makes any difference, the GW1 Charr were meant to be seen like any other mob. I never heard anyone lament those poor Destroyers for us using their smoldering hides for gauntlets. :P

• Yes the Charr were there beforehand, but no one even knows how long before 100BE, or even if it was uncontested that whole time. They certainly didn’t bother to name it, and there’s zero mention of them building anything, or even settling the area.(I wouldn’t be surprised if ANet writes in something like, “Humans stole the name Ascalon from the Charr” lol)

• Historically, Charr were the better fighters, and humans were better with magic. Playing the actual GW1 game, they are equal at both…since, you know, it’s a game and the mechanics have to match up. Always be mindful not to confuse game mechanics with lore.

• Adelbern is a mixed bag. Most hate him because he was a prik to his son, and has kitten ed his fellow citizens to eternal undead. Some think he’s a hero. The Foefire was merely ANet’s way of debasing his character to further vindicate the Charr presence in Ascalon. The GW1 Adelbern was stubborn and a bad father…the genocidal maniac Adelbern is a GW2 creation. It’s important to make that distinction. But even so, the Foefire itself is not a horrible act considering gruesome annihilation was the alternative(Charr were notorious for torturing prisoners before killing them). I mean, if I had the chance to suicide myself to keep my enemy out of my home forever…I’d do it.

• The “ancestral homeland” thing is a recent edit, as has been discussed in this very thread. There’s never any mention of that before 2012, which makes it a “GW2” thing. Everything even remotely related to this in GW1 points to the area NE of the Ascalon Basin as the Charr homelands. It was assumed by everyone(including the writers) that the Basin was simply considered Charr territory before humanity’s arrival, much like Italy was considered the Roman’s homeland…and not the second you pass Hadrian’s Wall. This whole thing is simply ANet taking advantage of something not specified in GW1 lore to bestow legitimacy on GW2 Charr in Ascalon, nothing more really.

Frosch.7809:

The Charr hold the land through military might, not because they got a right to hold it because it was already theirs 1250 years ago. If such ancient claims would still be valid in our real world plenty of nations would cease to exist.

No. It belongs to the charr because it was theirs to begin with 1250 years ago.

The humans were victorious invaders and pushed them back, and a bit later, yes, through millitary might, the charr reclaimed their ancestral homeland.

They win out for reason of both. Ancestry and millitary might.

It is enough to build a nation based on millitary might alone as you yourself insinuate with your comment there about ancient claims.

That’s what humans did with Ascalon after all.

The charr satisfy both. You wanna argue ancestry? Charr predate humans in the land of Ascalon by a landslide. Wanna argue right of war? Charr won.

It’s their land.

Frosch.7809:

And the Grawl would have the strongest claim to Ascalon by the way.

No, that would be the forgotten and possibly the ogres followed by the charr.

Since there’s really nothing there for the ogre claims (they claim to be older than the mountains) beyond assumptions with regards to the age of giants, that leaves the charr.

The grawl might be at least as old as the charr. Grawl are mentioned in some of the earliest of charr history. Being dominated and subjugated to them.

Obsidian.1328:

(I wouldn’t be surprised if ANet writes in something like, “Humans stole the name Ascalon from the Charr” lol)

Nope. It’s acknowledged that charr took to using the name Ascalon that the humans gave the land as a whole. Charr never named the land as a whole.

Charr traditionally simply identify based on territory established proper.

CETheLucid.3964:

Charr traditionally simply identify based on territory established proper.

What does that mean?

CETheLucid.3964:

No. It belongs to the charr because it was theirs to begin with 1250 years ago.

The humans were victorious invaders and pushed them back, and a bit later, yes, through millitary might, the charr reclaimed their ancestral homeland.

They win out for reason of both. Ancestry and millitary might.

It is enough to build a nation based on millitary might alone as you yourself insinuate with your comment there about ancient claims.

That’s what humans did with Ascalon after all.

The charr satisfy both. You wanna argue ancestry? Charr predate humans in the land of Ascalon by a landslide. Wanna argue right of war? Charr won.

It’s their land.

If selecting a point in time to justify claims to the land then only the very beginning of settlement of Ascalon can count, and any following occupations of Ascalon don’t.

And that means the Charr invaded Ascalon long before humanity and the land is not theirs, it’s the land of the Forgotten, Dwarves, Grawl, or whoever was there first.

Now about the length of time of settlement as basis for claims to the land:

The current Charr population of Ascalon can’t be blamed for what their ancestors did. The land is theirs by their tradition of living there for 250 years.

Neither can the human population at the time of the Searing be blamed for anything their ancestors supposedly did, they were victims of Charr aggression, and Ascalon was human land after 1000 years.

And no, we can’t tell for how long the Charr had been in Ascalon before humanity arrived.

Now if we want to bring morality into the argument about who owns the land then we better not compare the Charr with humanity because the Charr would lose badly.

The Charr strike me as sour losers who could not accept that they had lost a war against humanity.

By the way, humanity is still in Ascalon today, it is not gone.

Frosch.7809:

The Charr strike me as sour losers who could not accept that they had lost a war against humanity.

…….. Interesting. How one group will be sour losers who can’t accept that they lost a war. XP

I was waiting for that lol.

Frosch.7809:

If selecting a point in time to justify claims to the land then only the very beginning of settlement of Ascalon can count, and any following occupations of Ascalon don’t.

And that means the Charr invaded Ascalon long before humanity and the land is not theirs, it’s the land of the Forgotten, Dwarves, Grawl, or whoever was there first.

The fact that you have charr warring with the forgotten, the most ancient of races in Tyria argues in favor of charr being the original occupants.

Given the charge of the forgotten to act as custodians and guides for the races of the Tyria.

Charr are among the earliest, if not the earliest of races in the land of Ascalon. Moreover, charr do not need to play this card.

They’ve won the land by right of war.

Though they do certainly qualify, especially when arguing with some dense, bitter human who thinks they have a greater claim based on heritage and ancestry in the land.

Frosch.7809:

The current Charr population of Ascalon can’t be blamed for what their ancestors did.

We can agree on this.

Frosch.7809:

The land is theirs by their tradition of living there for 250 years.

Hehehehehehehehaahahahahaahaha.. nah.

Neither can the human population at the time of the Searing be blamed for anything their ancestors supposedly did, they were victims of Charr aggression,

Tit for tat. Humans and charr did terrible, terrible things to one and other. Neither can play the moral high ground card.

Frosch.7809:

and Ascalon was human land after 1000 years.

CETheLucid.3964:

Frosch.7809:

The Charr hold the land through military might, not because they got a right to hold it because it was already theirs 1250 years ago. If such ancient claims would still be valid in our real world plenty of nations would cease to exist.

No. It belongs to the charr because it was theirs to begin with 1250 years ago.

The humans were victorious invaders and pushed them back, and a bit later, yes, through millitary might, the charr reclaimed their ancestral homeland.

They win out for reason of both. Ancestry and millitary might.

It is enough to build a nation based on millitary might alone as you yourself insinuate with your comment there about ancient claims.

That’s what humans did with Ascalon after all.

The charr satisfy both. You wanna argue ancestry? Charr predate humans in the land of Ascalon by a landslide. Wanna argue right of war? Charr won.

It’s their land.

Frosch.7809:

And no, we can’t tell for how long the Charr had been in Ascalon before humanity arrived.

Negative ghostrider. Lore establishes the fact. Charr were there waaaaay before humanity arrived.

Frosch.7809:

Now if we want to bring morality into the argument about who owns the land then we better not compare the Charr with humanity because the Charr would lose badly.

Nope. We’d be pretty tit for tat. Again neither side can play the moral excellence card. Moreover, morality arguments do not decide who owns the land.

Frosch.7809:

The Charr strike me as sour losers who could not accept that they had lost a war against humanity.

And the fact that this argument is taking place here is proving humanity is so much better.

Bitter much?

Obsidian.1328:

CETheLucid.3964:

Charr traditionally simply identify based on territory established proper.

What does that mean?

This is Iron territory, this is Ash territory, this is Blood territory. I laid it out in a previous post.

Ascalon as a whole is a human name for the land and the charr have adopted it.

They’re not going to say humans stole the name from the charr. It’s established that humans came up with the name for the land as a whole.

Frosch.7809:

By the way, humanity is still in Ascalon today, it is not gone.

By the grace and sense of respect for worthy foes forthcoming of your charr chums and the diplomatic finesse of your Krytan queen, yes.

Humans have a little place for themselves in Ascalon.

My inner charr beckons me to say: You’re welcome little mouse. Need a hand with those ogres, m8?

CET

Cute drawing.

Your arguments, while needlessly antagonistic, have a few unknowns you take for fact.

So, when did the Charr arrive in Ascalon in the first place then? Dealing with the Forgotten doesn’t help your argument since they didn’t even retreat to the Crystal Desert until 174AE, almost 300 years after humans got to Ascalon. It doesn’t matter that much though.

Actually the name Ascalon was never specified to come from humans, it was assumed to be.

Your moral parity I have no idea where you get. Where, in the history of Tyria, did the humans do atrocious things to the Charr? And try to answer this without the same old “Charr hide” argument over and over…the Charr were a mob back then like anything else, and as such dropped mats to make stuff. It was a game mechanic.

Obsidian.1328:

Where, in the history of Tyria, did the humans do atrocious things to the Charr?

The Ecology of the Charr:

Then, the humans came, an infestation caused by beings called gods that had been enemies to the Charr since the beginnings of history. The humans worshiped and revered these gods, and in return were given magic the likes of which the Charr had never before. This upstart race spread like a plague across the continent, and the Charr soon faced the true challenge to their dominance–the threat of humanity.

…

That doesn’t answer the question at all lol.

Obsidian.1328:

Your arguments, while needlessly antagonistic

I’m sorry you think I’m being antagonistic.

I simply disagree with your thoughts and opinions by and large, though I find a thing or two here and there that I might agree with you on. It’s pretty rare though.

You pretty much hate the direction the lore went and I don’t. I like (understatement) the game and I am an active player. You’re pretty much exclusive to the forums.

That’s the end of it really. We’re not going to come to any remarkable place that we can both say we’re of an accord about these things.

See, the cute drawing (not mine BTW) is supposed to help convey that I’m amused with the abject pedantry people take to this whole thing!

Where you think I’m trying to be antagonistic, is probably where I’m trying to make you laugh about it.

You silly dense bitter human you~

Obsidian.1328:

…

That doesn’t answer the question at all lol.

You’re asking several questions, many I’ve already answered. Some you’re contesting without citing sources.

You address other thoughts still with an incredible lack of common sense, in addition to the “don’t say the one thing that’s so terribly obvious to everyone because that would be too easy” thing.

I don’t have time for this. Maybe another day.

CET

Lol, Charr hide armor doesn’t indict humanity, unless you want to indict them for collecting pieces of every other mob in the game and using them for some armor recipe. Should humans feel bad for all those Tengu they killed to get feathers to use in armor as well? Are you going to be equally up-in-arms about this tragedy in the Tengu forums when they become a playable race? It’s common sense that the Charr hide argument is just plain silly.

You haven’t answered any of my questions as far as I know. Tell me the cited date the Charr first arrived in Ascalon. Same with the naming of it. You can’t because it’s not there, yet you claim it as a something we all know. Or something.

I suppose I would have laughed at your sarcasm if it was better implemented. Timing is everything in comedy, you should have played that card further down the line and not right out of the gate.

Also, if you wouldn’t bow out of your arguments every time they get rolling, peeps might give you more credit. Stay in it for the long haul bud, you sound way more credible when actually stick around to defend your points. Just friendly advise.

In the present day Ascalon is scarred with the ruined remains of past human settlement as well as that of the Searing and the Dragonbrand. They are lasting testament of sustained long lasting human settlement of the land.

In my three years of playing Guild Wars(1) I did not once see any evidence of past Charr civilisation anywhere in the map of Ascalon available to us. No evidence of past settlement by the Charr. Since the Charr is an advanced and organised race today one would assume that they would have used the same construction materials as the humans did and we would have seen major buildings and structures left behind.

Its been said by many contributors that the Charr have a much longer heritage in Ascalon before the human occupation. Where’s the archaeological proof of this?Has anyone seem any evidence of past Charr occuptation pre-dateing human settlement anywhere during their play through of Guild Wars(1)?

In my time there I saw none that I recall.

The movement of the world says charr were primitive. So they may well not have used materials that could last through 1000 years of human invasion and occupation. Much like how to teepees, wigwams and longhouses haven’t lasted even the 200 some odd years of the U.S. history.

or, they were simply torn down in those 1000 years of human occupation. Possibly for materials used to build human structures.

Then GW2 lore is null and void. Since using the land that was named Ascalon by humans as merely part of their hunting grounds with only temporary structures and no concept of nationhood is not a valid claim to being a country – a civilised society. Thus the claim that the land that became known as Ascalon was always humanity land by right of actually establishing permanent settlements and use of the land for farming and the grazing of cattle for the organised and permanent production of food and resources required for nation building.

Humanity were thus the first to established a permanent civilised society within the land that they themselves have named and held as their own.

And they were able to do so for roughly 1000 years up to the events of GW(1). Thus the lore should have continued that the Ascalonian humans were able to permanently repel the Charr advance and hold the land south of the Great Northern Wall and cure the land of the Searing in the past 250 years (btw: no Foefire too). Since humanity in Ascalon had still had the advantage of an organised civil society ruled under a unified crown.

The Charr had no such unity during the events of GW(1) with rebellion in the ranks and the Legions non-existent in a real sense due to the domination of the Shaman caste and the Flame Legion. The Ascalon landscape at the end of the events of GW(1) would have been the two side rebuilding their civilisations in Ascalon during the past 250 years.

Not sure where you’re getting that they had no concept of nationhood and no permanent structures. That isn’t GW1 lore or GW2 lore. Unless you’re saying that a structure needs to be able to endure 1000 years of erosion and possibly disassembly in order to qualify as " a permanent structure"?

edit: for clarity, I’m addressing the actual lore not fanfic.

rebellion doesn’t disqualify a nation or else none of the playable species have a nation. The High Legions were still in effect during GW1. They were just lead by the shamans of those High Legions.

It amuses me we’re still going on about this and that in the lore and there’s an occasional flippant “well I guess prior lore doesn’t matter” comment or something similar. We’ve been over this a lot trying to either reconcile the lore between the two games, or arguing it should have turned out differently, or how it’s implausible X because of Y.

There’s one very simple thing which you’ll note if you step back and take a look at humanity on Tyria.

Humanity are massive . . . donkey-pits . . . and have been since they decided they were chosen by the Gods to rule all of Tyria. Forgotten? Chase em out. Centaurs? Get off my new lawn. Charr? Bad kitty, no catnip, no go over there while I fence my new game preserve. And because one of those gods decided the world owed Him over some super-massive dump taken on Him for questioning the consensus, humanity got raked over coals on three continents to the point they either were incredibly weakened or survived by becoming even more antagonistic wieners to those around them.

Seriously. Humanity is one act of puppy-kicking after another.

The only bigger wieners are asura. And that’s just because they’re not as bright as they are intelligent.

(Note, some word choices made due to needing to keep this PG.)

CETheLucid.3964:

Hehehehehehehehaahahahahaahaha.. nah.

That is really a convincing argument you got there. sarcasm off

Simply repeating an opinion does not turn it into an argument.

There is nothing wrong with being a Charr fan, you need not be ashamed of it.
But an opinion does not necessarily put you in a morally superior position.

Dustfinger.9510:

…….. Interesting. How one group will be sour losers who can’t accept that they lost a war. XP

It is obvious which side can hold a grudge longer than the other. To be on equal terms with the Charr humanity got about a thousand years left to hold a grudge. How many still do so after 250 years?

CETheLucid.3964:

My inner charr beckons me to say: You’re welcome little mouse. Need a hand with those ogres, m8?

Ah, the old argument that the Charr are generously letting humanity stay in Ebonhawke.
Overlooking that they tried for 250 years to take the city and failed. It’s understandable, there are no Titans around any more.
But yes, compared to the Charr the Ogres are really a terrible threat.

Dustfinger.9510:

Is this the goal? For humanity and/or players to be sour losers for another 750 years? if so, things make a little more sense.

Losing war or territory is equal to “being sore loser”? If so, then almost every country is sore loser because nobody can win all wars and hold all territory forever. This is outright nonsense.
250 years old war have nothing to do with actual power rankings, empires can rise and fall in much smaller timeframe. Humanity easily can return to greatness without thinking about Ascalon at all.

Rednik.3809:

Dustfinger.9510:

Is this the goal? For humanity and/or players to be sour losers for another 750 years? if so, things make a little more sense.

Losing war or territory is equal to “being sore loser”? If so, then almost every country is sore loser because nobody can win all wars and hold all territory forever. This is outright nonsense.

That was Nicholas’ take on the matter and it seems to be what Frosch was defending. I was merely pointing out the irony of that comment in this thread.

Dustfinger.9510:

…and it seems to be what Frosch was defending. I was merely pointing out the irony of that comment in this thread.

It only seems to be that way. I’ve said several times already that i can live with how things are in GW2.

I react when people (not pointing at anyone in particular) try to redeem the GW1 Charr, which in my opinion is not possible.

Permanent structures are those that use of stone or similar.

Materials such as wood, leather and all organic materials are classed as temporary. So nothing fanfic about my referencing. Fyi nothing I’ve written is fanfic sourced or related. And I have not changed or modified my position on anything I’ve written. They are all part of a unified whole.

I have in the past suggested variations and alternatives. But what I prefer is sound(in my opinion) and based on actual lore of GW(1) as I have experienced it and understanding of what would happen after the events of that game.

The books/novels that describe events in between were written based on the white-wash of GW(1) Lore to allow for the Lore of GW2 to occur as it now has. And just as a btw where are the Watchknights v.2? If Scarlet was able to develop and build new armies of weapon systems why can’t Queen Jennah’s Kryta do the same?

Nicholas S Lin.6187:

If Scarlet was able to develop and build new armies of weapon systems why can’t Queen Jennah’s Kryta do the same?

Because they didn’t completely design the watchknights, they adapted a lot of technology they didn’t understand from the steam creatures. This is why it’s not been improved on yet, aside from the fact Scarlet still was running around and probably could have taken Version 2.0 for herself as well.

She has root user access.

History is history. As for the question that started this thread, my answer is:

Nelson Mandela:

Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.

I wouldn’t. As the previous post, history is history. Supposing is something happened 200 years ago, and the actual enemies the world has, well it just would be foolish from humanity to wage war against their now allies

Nicholas S Lin.6187:

Permanent structures are those that use of stone or similar.

Materials such as wood, leather and all organic materials are classed as temporary. So nothing fanfic about my referencing. Fyi nothing I’ve written is fanfic sourced or related. And I have not changed or modified my position on anything I’ve written. They are all part of a unified whole.

I have in the past suggested variations and alternatives. But what I prefer is sound(in my opinion) and based on actual lore of GW(1) as I have experienced it and understanding of what would happen after the events of that game.

The books/novels that describe events in between were written based on the white-wash of GW(1) Lore to allow for the Lore of GW2 to occur as it now has. And just as a btw where are the Watchknights v.2? If Scarlet was able to develop and build new armies of weapon systems why can’t Queen Jennah’s Kryta do the same?

?? Permanent structures are those that are made to stay where they are. Not matter what they’re made of. So a log cabin is still a permanent structure. Where are these classes established?

A log cabin is made from organic material thus not permanent. Wood is not similar to stone. Structures or its ruin can last for several centuries if left relatively undisturbed if climatic and environment conditions are favourable.

Thus I believe there is little supporting evidence to substantiate Charr claims of ownership to the land that became known as Ascalon. The most that they can claim is that their ancestors “may” have used the land as part of their hunting grounds.

(PS: Please read the texts of my last two entries carefully, Dustfinger).

wether a structure is permanent or not has nothing to do with what it’s made of. it has everything to do with whether it’s intended to be moved.

but going by your definition, the charr have no claim to the land because their houses weren’t made of stone? (which you have no evidence of at all beyond the fact that they didn’t last 1000 years)

What if they all lived in giant log cabin cities that the humans may have burned down when they invaded? Would they have a claim to the land then?

Structures or its ruin can last for several centuries if left relatively undisturbed if climatic and environment conditions are favourable.

And what about the unfavorable conditions of an invading army? And do we have any idea what the climactic and environmental conditions were like in the 1000 years after the charr lost it?

The most that they can claim is that their ancestors “may” have used the land as part of their hunting grounds.

They can actually claim that their ancestors used the land to build giant wood and mud cities. But since you don’t count those as “permanent structures” that means they only could have existed as “hunting grounds”? that makes no sense.

edit: I’ve read your entries carefully. I fully understand that you prefer what you think should have happened over what did happen. I would like you to understand that you stating what you prefer as if it is actually what happened is only going to mislead the lore community. So I prefer to clarify that what you prefer, often times, isn’t what actually happened.

I would totally kick the charr in their fat a**, GW1 was so much better by having only the human race…