Guild Wars 2

Kalavier.1097:

Obsidian.1328:

Dustfinger.9510:

How do we know they were nomadic in GW1? That they didn’t have vast cities back in their homelands away from the front lines of their invasion?

That kind of thinking leads to all sorts of problems. How do we know there aren’t vast Grawl cities as well somewhere off the map? Or Centaur? Or Ogre? We don’t, but we can only presume based off of how the game portrays a given culture. The GW1 Charr gave almost no impression of anything urban or settled in nature. Everything points to a nomadic and/or tribal way of life. Extrapolating from those precedents seems a logical thing to do.

If anything, the Ascalons would be the one’s to have cities/towns outside the known one’s we see in-game. They are known to be both explorers, and permanent settlers. Who’s to say they didn’t have vast settlements back behind their homelands away from the front lines?

We know Ascalon had Nolani and Surmia (spelling?) north of the wall. Maybe another (which could be the urban fractal perhaps.)

Thing is, EOTN established they had forts and such. “homelands” and even in GW2 we hear about the “blood citadel” which is the Blood legion headquarters, though we don’t have a location.

The front lines isn’t really a good example of a races behaviour elsewhere. Charr warcamps don’t mean they don’t have towns in other areas, and in GW2 they obviously set up villages so it makes sense.

Grawl simply don’t make sense to have cities. Centaurs and Ogres both have some sizable camps/forts, so both would make sense to perhaps have a city.

Drascir is the other of note. Not sure if the urban fractal is representative of any particular city. And EotN is GW2 for purposes here. Even in GW1 in Diessa Lowlands, they give a glimpse of a Charr encampment. That area of low stone pyramids where you have to retrieve Althea’s ashes is a Charr structure. [remember that they had been inside Ascalon north of the wall for years before the actual Searing] If that area is any indication of Charr culture(I see no reason why it shouldn’t), then it certainly implies a more tribal existence. I’m sure they probably had areas of possibly religious importance(worshiping Titans and all) like this somewhere up north. But without anything else besides religious structures like this and the actual Cauldron to speak of, how can we assume they have anything resembling urban centers akin to human cities?

Maybe not like a human city, but I’m sure they do have villages/cities of a sort. Though I recall some ascalonian style ruins all the way in the charr flame legion homelands…

Kalavier.1097:

Maybe not like a human city, but I’m sure they do have villages/cities of a sort. Though I recall some ascalonian style ruins all the way in the charr flame legion homelands…

Where is that? 0.o

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier.1097:

Maybe not like a human city, but I’m sure they do have villages/cities of a sort. Though I recall some ascalonian style ruins all the way in the charr flame legion homelands…

Where is that? 0.o

GW1 citadel of flame/dungeon area. IIRC, much of it is ascalon style of ruins that the Flame legion inhabit.

I think the one fleshreaver dungeon and the Dwarf hammer dungeon in the charr homelands region also had some of them involved… Even the bonus stone summit one after you beat the great destroyer.

Or at least, they had ruins which used the Ascalonian style of construction :O.

Yeah, Cathedral of Flames I always assumed was made by someone else. It doesn’t fit in with other Charr structures at all. Kind of like how the Ebon Vanguard were inhabiting the Eye of the North. They were just using someone else’s stuff. :P

Obsidian.1328:

Yeah, Cathedral of Flames I always assumed was made by someone else. It doesn’t fit in with other Charr structures at all. Kind of like how the Ebon Vanguard were inhabiting the Eye of the North. They were just using someone else’s stuff. :P

Maybe some humans pushed that far north but later got wiped out easily whenever the charr started pushing back.

Obsidian.1328:

That kind of thinking leads to all sorts of problems. How do we know there aren’t vast Grawl cities as well somewhere off the map? Or Centaur? Or Ogre? We don’t, but we can only presume based off of how the game portrays a given culture. The GW1 Charr gave almost no impression of anything urban or settled in nature. Everything points to a nomadic and/or tribal way of life. Extrapolating from those precedents seems a logical thing to do.

If anything, the Ascalons would be the one’s to have cities/towns outside the known one’s we see in-game. They are known to be both explorers, and permanent settlers. Who’s to say they didn’t have vast settlements back behind their homelands away from the front lines?

ascalonians may well have. This is the purpose of measuring both species with the same ruler. It helps to keep the problem of having a double standard away.

if it isn’t addressed, there are only possibilities. But it definitely isn’t set in stone as we have clearly been shown. As the saying goes, “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”. Factors such as the fact that charr were launching a fast aggressive, large scale attack that may not reflect the lager overture of the culture need to also be a taken into account.

So sure, let’s acknowledge the possibility that they were nomadic. But to state it as a fact is to be disingenuous at best and a liar at worst.

Stramatus.5219:

See EOTN, Charr Homelands. Bunch of camps, I think I recall one stronghold, but certainly no cities.

I’d say that stronghold is evidence against the charr being nomadic.

Dustfinger.9510:

Stramatus.5219:

See EOTN, Charr Homelands. Bunch of camps, I think I recall one stronghold, but certainly no cities.

I’d say that stronghold is evidence against the charr being nomadic.

This is what I am thinking of: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Assault_on_the_Stronghold

A fortification is one thing. It was hardly a “city”.

Stramatus.5219:

Dustfinger.9510:

Stramatus.5219:

See EOTN, Charr Homelands. Bunch of camps, I think I recall one stronghold, but certainly no cities.

I’d say that stronghold is evidence against the charr being nomadic.

This is what I am thinking of: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Assault_on_the_Stronghold

A fortification is one thing. It was hardly a “city”.

It doesn’t really need to be a city though. Those fixed stairs are a good indication that that stronghold isn’t made to pick up and move with the bison herds.

I have a question: does that mean when our hero’s fought for Ascalon in GW1, we were actually the bad guys?

bullyrook.2165:

I have a question: does that mean when our hero’s fought for Ascalon in GW1, we were actually the bad guys?

Not so! It means that when a member of each race fights for what’s best for their race/home/family/city/etc, they don’t have to be inherently bad or good. Like asking who the good guys and bad guys were within the human kingdoms during the guild wars. Often times, simple catagories like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ can only be too simple to be accurate.

A fort at best can only be classed as a small village – at most. Not a city. Which begs the quest would smelted steel/iron for the Charr since its obvious they did not. A nomadic people is not capable of mining and certainly not smelting.

A fort is not a major urban area even though it would have the population of a village. The Charr can be considered NOT evil at all. They were all a proud people doing what’s best for their Warband(s).

The Humans were no less resolute. And did have the ability to manufacture the machinery for both civilian and war uses. And yes Humans did have several cities and major towns in Ascalon. Yet all that was apparently mostly gone in a single bombardment. Ascalon City was most certainly reduced to rubble. Genocide on a massive scale. The Charr must have known to a significant degree the likely damage the Searing would do to the Humans and the farmlands.

Yet they used it anyway. So if they considered Ascalon a ‘Homeland’ why poison the land and the rivers, the lakes for generations?

Dustfinger.9510:

bullyrook.2165:

I have a question: does that mean when our hero’s fought for Ascalon in GW1, we were actually the bad guys?

Not so! It means that when a member of each race fights for what’s best for their race/home/family/city/etc, they don’t have to be inherently bad or good.

But ANet wants you to think the Separatists(and Renegades for that matter) are bad. That wanting to continue fighting for your home, in this case, is inherently a bad thing.

How does that fit in to your premise?

Obsidian.1328:

Dustfinger.9510:

bullyrook.2165:

I have a question: does that mean when our hero’s fought for Ascalon in GW1, we were actually the bad guys?

Not so! It means that when a member of each race fights for what’s best for their race/home/family/city/etc, they don’t have to be inherently bad or good.

But ANet wants you to think the Separatists(and Renegades for that matter) are bad. That wanting to continue fighting for your home, in this case, is inherently a bad thing.

How does that fit in to your premise?

That’s not the bad thing about the Separatists. The bad thing is how they don’t care who gets hurt alongside their enemies, at best, or at worst claim anyone working for peace is a traitor to their race and thus an enemy.

They’re bad because they turn the market in Ebonhawke into a fiery blaze now and then to make a point.

They’re bad because even if you have no stake in the fight (being norn, sylvari, or asura) you’ll still be attacked.

They’re bad because they are terrible at distinguishing between targets in line with their philosophy (or at least what people keep trying to tell me it is), and bystanders or innocents.

That’s why they are classified as “terrorists” more than “patriots”. There is precedent, by the way, but I won’t bore you with actual history less than thirty years old.

Obsidian.1328:

But ANet wants you to think the Separatists(and Renegades for that matter) are bad. That wanting to continue fighting for your home, in this case, is inherently a bad thing.

How does that fit in to your premise?

Because it not in the best interest of their species to continue a war that been essentially a deadlock, especially considering there are six dragons with huge armies that want to consume magic and life on the planet. Survival of the species should take top priority over grudges, Ascalonians are human not dwarves after all they don’t have a book of grudges.

Well, I simply dislike the fact that there is no middle ground in this difference of opinion. Feels like Kryta is occupying Ascalon and asking the locals to be happy about it. In fairness, the Queen has a limited right to extend her will over Ebonhawk, but placing special forces with gaudy titles for the purpose “protecting” Tyria’s most hardboiled humans seems a bit overdone.

Nicholas S Lin.6187:

A fort at best can only be classed as a small village – at most. Not a city.

A fort, by definition is also a stronghold. Meaning it isn’t made to ambulatory the way the villages of nomadic peoples were. It had watch towers and fixed stairs as well. It is clear evidence in GW1 that the charr utilized fixed positions. So we actually have indication that the charr may well not have been nomadic.

Obsidian.1328:

But ANet wants you to think the Separatists(and Renegades for that matter) are bad. That wanting to continue fighting for your home, in this case, is inherently a bad thing.

How does that fit in to your premise?

Anet gives us a POV. From the POV we are given they are bad. However, being bad in one POV doesn’t neccesarily mean that it has to be inherently bad. It just means it’s bad from the POV we are given. e.g.: Alligator eats my hand. bad from my POV, good from his. I’m sure there are noble intentions behind some of the seperatists and renegades. So they really aren’t saying that “fighting for your home is inherently a bad thing”. As Darkbattlemage pointed out, it is simply a bad thing in this instance due to the details. It is situationally bad. If it was inherently bad, details wouldn’t matter.

We are given plenty of red tags in the game. Even from aggressive animals. Does that make an irate bull “bad”? Or does it make the centaur “bad”? Even a-net acknowledges that some situations (like centaur) are more complicated than “good or bad”.

Tobi

One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. The English did all sorts of atrocious things to the Irish for hundreds of years, and the Irish(when given the opportunity) did equally atrocious things back to them in return. Who’s more “right”. Truth is subjective. It depends on your point of view, like Dust said. ANet wants them to be viewed as terrorists by having them be reckless with bystanders because it reinforces their own agenda; i.e. unity amongst the playable races. Obviously this wouldn’t matter much if GW1 didn’t exist, but it does.

Dust

The thing is ANet only gives you one side to view it from, so it’s not situational. To them, looking at it from the Separatists side is wrong in-game. They may have said that about the centaurs, but they stop short from giving hard-line Ascalons the same relative maneuvering. In this scenario, it’s black and white to them. And that’s a problem.

Obsidian.1328:

Dust

The thing is ANet only gives you one side to view it from, so it’s not situational. To them, looking at it from the Separatists side is wrong in-game. They may have said that about the centaurs, but they stop short from giving hard-line Ascalons the same relative maneuvering. In this scenario, it’s black and white to them. And that’s a problem.

The fact that it is only one side to view from means it is situational. We just don’t have the option of another situation. So that may well be a problem but it in no way means it is inherently bad. But it is probably situationally bad because it means that the majority of a species like the warmongering charr can see the writing on the wall, where as the sepretist and rebels hang onto petty land disputes in the wake of world ending dangers tyria now faces. details like that make the actions of the rebels and seperatists illogical and selfdestructive. As well as destructive to the fate of the world at large.

Obsidian.1328:

One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. The English did all sorts of atrocious things to the Irish for hundreds of years, and the Irish(when given the opportunity) did equally atrocious things back to them in return. Who’s more “right”. Truth is subjective. It depends on your point of view, like Dust said. ANet wants them to be viewed as terrorists by having them be reckless with bystanders because it reinforces their own agenda; i.e. unity amongst the playable races. Obviously this wouldn’t matter much if GW1 didn’t exist, but it does.

You realise that also applies to the Charr back in GW1, right?

Zaxares.5419:

Obsidian.1328:

One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. The English did all sorts of atrocious things to the Irish for hundreds of years, and the Irish(when given the opportunity) did equally atrocious things back to them in return. Who’s more “right”. Truth is subjective. It depends on your point of view, like Dust said. ANet wants them to be viewed as terrorists by having them be reckless with bystanders because it reinforces their own agenda; i.e. unity amongst the playable races. Obviously this wouldn’t matter much if GW1 didn’t exist, but it does.

You realise that also applies to the Charr back in GW1, right?

It also doesn’t matter much anyway – he’s gone to meta-game arguments. Again.

bullyrook.2165:

Well, I simply dislike the fact that there is no middle ground in this difference of opinion. Feels like Kryta is occupying Ascalon and asking the locals to be happy about it. In fairness, the Queen has a limited right to extend her will over Ebonhawk, but placing special forces with gaudy titles for the purpose “protecting” Tyria’s most hardboiled humans seems a bit overdone.

Note that actually besides the hardcore people, many of Ebonhawke are GLAD for the cease-fire. Hell, they are settling their lands (They were given fields of ruin with the treaty) and making friends with the Charr.

(See CoF path 1, and the treaty tent.) Sure, some humans and charr are growling at each other, but others are making friends and going “Man, all those childhood tales about you… aren’t true at all!”

I’ve read actually Jennah and the currently lord of Ebonhawke are the only two humans capable of breaking the foefire. Honestly, besides a few TRUE old timers in Ascalon Settlement (They call you a doomed heathen if you aren’t human. One gets very nasty if you are charr. Two old ladies who get told to can it by a nearby guard for harassing visitors), people have moved on. Both in Kryta and Ascalon.

I don’t really get an “occupied” ascalon feeling much. I think most of the citizens are happy to finally have the sieges over, especially the ones who went out to set up camps and farms beyond the walls. What they want is peace, not being harassed by angry separatists or such.

To get back on track again. My central line of inquiry I’m leading up to is this: On what basis can Arenanet possiblely give to change the Charr from from a Tribal/Warrior culture to an Advance urban-industrial culture that values in their turn: War prowse, Science, Technology, Engineering, Mass social intergration and the way of the Warrior.

With a starting point of a culture that lacks even the most basic understanding of the value of research and development of non-Tribal concepts and socialisation? These values would need to be willing adopted and enforced within Charr society with the blessing and full authority of the Charr leadership – The High Legions.

There is no evidence that this transformational change could likely and actually occur during the events of GW(1) event including the events of “Eye of the North”.

In the Ascalon region only the Human race show real and actual evidence of this. Only the Humans had large scale social integration the large urban centers like Ascalon City and the other cities/large towns like Rin, Drascir and Surmia. With major towns like Ashford, Fort Ranik, Nolani, Piken and Serenity.

There is no evidence that the Charr had any urban center that survives to GW2 that was devoted to anything other than tribal rituals and worship like Doomlore (CoF). Even Doomlore no longer exist in GW2 with only CoF all that remains of it.

So where is evidence of this transformational spark that changed a tribal/semi-nomadic/warrior culture to an advance highly urbanised/ industrial/ militaristic culture? How was the change even possible over the course of the 250 years leading to the present day?

Nicholas S Lin.6187:

So where is evidence of this transformational spark that changed a tribal/semi-nomadic/warrior culture to an advance highly urbanised/ industrial/ militaristic culture? How was the change even possible over the course of the 250 years leading to the present day?

Where is the evidence the United States of America could exist in some semblance of stability for 200 years before it did? For that matter, where is the evidence the Industrial Revolution could have possibly happened before it became possible? The Information Age?

We live in a world where I can, in the palm of my hand, call forth access to the Internet and any bit of information which is stored on it. This is less than the time it took the charr to form this society they have now.

. . . seriously, this is something you want to call unrealistic? Candlelight to nuclear power in 200 years is reality, but a culture solidifying from a revolution against religious oppression is totally out of the question?

People have strange opinions of what’s “realistic”.

Kalavier.1097:

bullyrook.2165:

Well, I simply dislike the fact that there is no middle ground in this difference of opinion. Feels like Kryta is occupying Ascalon and asking the locals to be happy about it. In fairness, the Queen has a limited right to extend her will over Ebonhawk, but placing special forces with gaudy titles for the purpose “protecting” Tyria’s most hardboiled humans seems a bit overdone.

Note that actually besides the hardcore people, many of Ebonhawke are GLAD for the cease-fire. Hell, they are settling their lands (They were given fields of ruin with the treaty) and making friends with the Charr.

(See CoF path 1, and the treaty tent.) Sure, some humans and charr are growling at each other, but others are making friends and going “Man, all those childhood tales about you… aren’t true at all!”

I’ve read actually Jennah and the currently lord of Ebonhawke are the only two humans capable of breaking the foefire. Honestly, besides a few TRUE old timers in Ascalon Settlement (They call you a doomed heathen if you aren’t human. One gets very nasty if you are charr. Two old ladies who get told to can it by a nearby guard for harassing visitors), people have moved on. Both in Kryta and Ascalon.

I don’t really get an “occupied” ascalon feeling much. I think most of the citizens are happy to finally have the sieges over, especially the ones who went out to set up camps and farms beyond the walls. What they want is peace, not being harassed by angry separatists or such.

If you got a peaceful feeling from visiting Ebonhawk, I must be visiting the place only on Mondays. The people of Ebonhawk are glad of the treaty, to be sure, but they still hate the Charr with a passion and rightly so. You cannot ask two peoples so entrenched in war with the blood of the other’s siblings on their hands to suddenly act chummy. It isn’t going to happen. It will take generations for that rift to heal, and forcing change though the use of special forces like the Queen is doing will only cause trouble. She really should have left the security of Ebonhawk to its guards, reinforcing their ranks through transfers, not those glorified Seraph. It breeds feelings of animosity and contempt when someone outside of your fight steps in uninvited and says “Here, let us handle things. You poor fellows will only ruin the peace we are trying to establish.” It is demeaning. And for the people of Ebonhawk, their pride and hope is all they have left. I’m just saying that it could have been handled more tactfully.

In the real world countries with a real and strong cultural/racial link with Europe (and along the way the rest of the world as well) like America were able to benefit since immigrants bring this fire with them to their new homeland. It was the promise of the ’American Dream" that inspired so many to make the crossing. To start a new life in what many saw America as: “The Promise Land”.

The mix of the drive and different but complimentary ideas but with a shared sense of the “American Dream” is what forged modern America. And has done so since the beginning.

The has been almost countless examples of this shared experience.

In the case of the Charr there is to my knowledge no example of this transformation spark and drive to change their nation to the way they are now in the current game.

Nicholas S Lin.6187:

In the real world countries with a real and strong cultural/racial link with Europe (and along the way the rest of the world as well) like America were able to benefit since immigrants bring this fire with them to their new homeland. It was the promise of the ’American Dream" that inspired so many to make the crossing. To start a new life in what many saw America as: “The Promise Land”.

The mix of the drive and different but complimentary ideas but with a shared sense of the “American Dream” is what forged modern America. And has done so since the beginning.

The has been almost countless examples of this shared experience.

In the case of the Charr there is to my knowledge no example of this transformation spark and drive to change their nation to the way they are now in the current game.

There are potentials:

- Pyre’s revolution. The focus moving away from following the shaman caste at that time and instead dropping the idea of “gods” being the way to power for the charr. I would present the opinion that trusting in their own strength rather than needing gods to define the strength of the charr was a step forward to organizing in a different manner.

- Recovery of Black Powder. Dwarven black powder, gunpowder, more than likely changed everything when it was looked at closer. We know there were demolition charges back in the time of the Great Destroyer, but it’s implied the dwarves no longer had a monopoly on it after turning to stone. Hence, this is where the firearms came from.

- The Sacking of Ascalon City. Say what you will, the charr were going to win an invasion when it was focused solely on the one target and not fragmented. If the path of the Searing stopped in Ascalon and didn’t just keep rolling it wouldn’t have been so easy to resist the charr occupation. Even saying that, it wasn’t easy at all and there was a very near loss which barely pulled through. Twice.
But the ending of their enemy nation to where it couldn’t actually become stronger anymore, and being able to hold that territory in the face of the Foefire effects? I’d call that a spark which tells the charr they most certainly are in the right path and it should be developed. Hence the unification and organization we see today.

Of course, this isn’t without problems. The charr system doesn’t really work unless they’re at war with someone, since they glorify battle and warriors so much and look down on others. If they were given a period of actual peace I think the current state of charr culture would collapse and need to become something . . . else.

That’s a very good last point, Tobias. Charr society is still very much a militaristic-oriented one. They are peaceful with other races insofar as they have a common enemy to fight (the Dragons). If/when the Dragons are defeated, and the ghosts/Flame Legion dealt with, the other races of Tyria might need to be wary of who the Charr decide their next enemy is.

Of course, this could be several generations later, and by then Charr society has matured by then to be more cosmopolitan and less expansionist. (You can already see it happening to Charr who leave Ascalon to settle elsewhere.) Future Charr generations may move away from their warlike origins and spread out into more sedentary, peaceful occupations.

bullyrook.2165:

If you got a peaceful feeling from visiting Ebonhawk, I must be visiting the place only on Mondays. The people of Ebonhawk are glad of the treaty, to be sure, but they still hate the Charr with a passion and rightly so. You cannot ask two peoples so entrenched in war with the blood of the other’s siblings on their hands to suddenly act chummy. It isn’t going to happen. It will take generations for that rift to heal, and forcing change though the use of special forces like the Queen is doing will only cause trouble. She really should have left the security of Ebonhawk to its guards, reinforcing their ranks through transfers, not those glorified Seraph. It breeds feelings of animosity and contempt when someone outside of your fight steps in uninvited and says “Here, let us handle things. You poor fellows will only ruin the peace we are trying to establish.” It is demeaning. And for the people of Ebonhawk, their pride and hope is all they have left. I’m just saying that it could have been handled more tactfully.

They hate the charr with a passion. Hmm. Funny

Seeing as I was just at summit peak, and there was the Ebon Vanguard captain who admitted having stuff in common with a Charr (The “Butcher of the siege plains” no less), and was working to get along with them. She admitted the next generation after they die would have an easier time, but both of them was focused on GIVING that generation a chance. So much hate huh?

Then you have the archer talking to a Charr marksmen, trading childhood horror stories of the other side, getting along fine and to quote human: “The charr are ferocious in battle, but in person they seem a little more… human.” Charr: “Humans aren’t as nasty tempered as I’d thought they would be.”

Hell, Iron Legion rep literally goes “Let’s just sign the papers, be at peace, and go back to work.” He literally says to “You think peace can just happen like that?” with “It should.”

Out of the three groups, only ONE pairing is laced with semi-hate. And that pairing literally goes “It’s hard to stand near them… but I’m controlling myself.”

Hell, for fun I then visited Ebonhawke, and ran into a human female named npc. She mentioned how pretty she was happy with the idea of peace.

Captain of the Ebon Vanguard says he’ll gladly accept the treaty and hang up his sword to return to farming.

Charr in the OoW hideout says all she gets is hard stares.

The Sergeant near the hawkgates is happy about the treaty.

An Angry farmer to the south isn’t happy, but it’s more toward Jennah then the charr.

So yes, running through Ebonhawke and the summit tent (I did not go into the Ebon Vanguard camp there admittedly), I didn’t get a feeling of a city full of hate toward Charr. I felt a city which was happy to finally have the chance at peace, and willing to move on. They didn’t feel like they were clinging to the hate and besides some, it felt like most were actually quite willing to just throw it aside.

Zaxares.5419:

That’s a very good last point, Tobias. Charr society is still very much a militaristic-oriented one. They are peaceful with other races insofar as they have a common enemy to fight (the Dragons). If/when the Dragons are defeated, and the ghosts/Flame Legion dealt with, the other races of Tyria might need to be wary of who the Charr decide their next enemy is.

Of course, this could be several generations later, and by then Charr society has matured by then to be more cosmopolitan and less expansionist. (You can already see it happening to Charr who leave Ascalon to settle elsewhere.) Future Charr generations may move away from their warlike origins and spread out into more sedentary, peaceful occupations.

I don’t get where people form the idea of if there were no dragons the Charr would suddenly invade everybody else.

Do note, before Kralk awoke, the Charr were only at war with Ebonhawke. They couldn’t care less about Kryta or the other nations. Even then, I recall reading that the siege of Ebonhawke went from all three legions, to just Iron, to just a small potion of Iron legion.

Even the Charr intro cutscene shows this. I forget the exact wording but it basically was “The humans took our land, and they have paid for that in blood.”

Paid, not “Will pay.” Iron legion at least seems to consider the debt of ‘blood’ from the humans/Ascalonians to be paid and delat with.

Similar to the idea that if the dragons/other threats weren’t around, the Charr would launch into some giant war against the human gods or spirits of the wild :/.

My guess would be that without a common enemy charr society will just go back to it’s infighting. All the major legions vying for dominance. But that infighting may not even be bloody. it could be largely political. With a khan-ur, the charr need the strict higherarchy of their society so much that any khan-ur that does get accepted will be so busy maintaining his worth as khan-ur that he need not fight a war.

Kalavier.1097:

Zaxares.5419:

That’s a very good last point, Tobias. Charr society is still very much a militaristic-oriented one. They are peaceful with other races insofar as they have a common enemy to fight (the Dragons). If/when the Dragons are defeated, and the ghosts/Flame Legion dealt with, the other races of Tyria might need to be wary of who the Charr decide their next enemy is.

Of course, this could be several generations later, and by then Charr society has matured by then to be more cosmopolitan and less expansionist. (You can already see it happening to Charr who leave Ascalon to settle elsewhere.) Future Charr generations may move away from their warlike origins and spread out into more sedentary, peaceful occupations.

I don’t get where people form the idea of if there were no dragons the Charr would suddenly invade everybody else.

I didn’t invoke dragons, I meant any enemy they could keep unified against. It’s not a given, but their culture right now prizes and glorifies fighting over other tasks. I honestly don’t think they could adapt well (as it stands right now) to not having any exterior threats to unify against.

Kalavier.1097:

bullyrook.2165:

If you got a peaceful feeling from visiting Ebonhawk, I must be visiting the place only on Mondays. The people of Ebonhawk are glad of the treaty, to be sure, but they still hate the Charr with a passion and rightly so. You cannot ask two peoples so entrenched in war with the blood of the other’s siblings on their hands to suddenly act chummy. It isn’t going to happen. It will take generations for that rift to heal, and forcing change though the use of special forces like the Queen is doing will only cause trouble. She really should have left the security of Ebonhawk to its guards, reinforcing their ranks through transfers, not those glorified Seraph. It breeds feelings of animosity and contempt when someone outside of your fight steps in uninvited and says “Here, let us handle things. You poor fellows will only ruin the peace we are trying to establish.” It is demeaning. And for the people of Ebonhawk, their pride and hope is all they have left. I’m just saying that it could have been handled more tactfully.

They hate the charr with a passion. Hmm. Funny

Seeing as I was just at summit peak, and there was the Ebon Vanguard captain who admitted having stuff in common with a Charr (The “Butcher of the siege plains” no less), and was working to get along with them. She admitted the next generation after they die would have an easier time, but both of them was focused on GIVING that generation a chance. So much hate huh?

Then you have the archer talking to a Charr marksmen, trading childhood horror stories of the other side, getting along fine and to quote human: “The charr are ferocious in battle, but in person they seem a little more… human.” Charr: “Humans aren’t as nasty tempered as I’d thought they would be.”

Hell, Iron Legion rep literally goes “Let’s just sign the papers, be at peace, and go back to work.” He literally says to “You think peace can just happen like that?” with “It should.”

Out of the three groups, only ONE pairing is laced with semi-hate. And that pairing literally goes “It’s hard to stand near them… but I’m controlling myself.”

Hell, for fun I then visited Ebonhawke, and ran into a human female named npc. She mentioned how pretty she was happy with the idea of peace.

Captain of the Ebon Vanguard says he’ll gladly accept the treaty and hang up his sword to return to farming.

Charr in the OoW hideout says all she gets is hard stares.

The Sergeant near the hawkgates is happy about the treaty.

An Angry farmer to the south isn’t happy, but it’s more toward Jennah then the charr.

So yes, running through Ebonhawke and the summit tent (I did not go into the Ebon Vanguard camp there admittedly), I didn’t get a feeling of a city full of hate toward Charr. I felt a city which was happy to finally have the chance at peace, and willing to move on. They didn’t feel like they were clinging to the hate and besides some, it felt like most were actually quite willing to just throw it aside.

Congrats, you found a handful of named NPCs that the devs threw in to help polarize the good of the treaty. And I never said anything about them not wanting peace, I was talking about being on friendly terms with each other. There is a big big difference. You can be at peace and still hate certain people’s guts. It is a matter of perception, not a matter of action.

And you said that getting a “Peaceful” feeling from the citizens (When not dealing with crazy seperatists) was basically odd/bad. Whether it was hate of Charr or of the Fallen Angels.

I found ONCE npcs who was hating on the Fallen Angels. Most other conversations I found was neutral. Treat them as outsides maybe, but not hating.

I saw some random conversations where the one person was against Charr/not wanting to deal with them, while the other was pointing out they used same money, and they’d have to.

Ebonhawke definitely did not give off a feeling of “kitten THE CHARR!”

If the head siegemaster of the charr, and the main anti-siege weapon scout of the vanguard can become friends immediately following the cease-fire, I don’t think the amount of hate is that intensive. The hate is more intense in that pair of old ladies in Ascalon settlement.

Kalavier.1097:

Zaxares.5419:

That’s a very good last point, Tobias. Charr society is still very much a militaristic-oriented one. They are peaceful with other races insofar as they have a common enemy to fight (the Dragons). If/when the Dragons are defeated, and the ghosts/Flame Legion dealt with, the other races of Tyria might need to be wary of who the Charr decide their next enemy is.

Of course, this could be several generations later, and by then Charr society has matured by then to be more cosmopolitan and less expansionist. (You can already see it happening to Charr who leave Ascalon to settle elsewhere.) Future Charr generations may move away from their warlike origins and spread out into more sedentary, peaceful occupations.

I don’t get where people form the idea of if there were no dragons the Charr would suddenly invade everybody else.

Do note, before Kralk awoke, the Charr were only at war with Ebonhawke. They couldn’t care less about Kryta or the other nations. Even then, I recall reading that the siege of Ebonhawke went from all three legions, to just Iron, to just a small potion of Iron legion.

Even the Charr intro cutscene shows this. I forget the exact wording but it basically was “The humans took our land, and they have paid for that in blood.”

Paid, not “Will pay.” Iron legion at least seems to consider the debt of ‘blood’ from the humans/Ascalonians to be paid and delat with.

Similar to the idea that if the dragons/other threats weren’t around, the Charr would launch into some giant war against the human gods or spirits of the wild :/.

A militaristic culture basically defines worth and accomplishment through conflict and warfare. Citizens living in such a culture basically need to prove themselves by defeating powerful foes and conquering others. They might be able to sublimate these urges into more peaceful/tolerated activities like sports or gladiatorial tournaments, or privateering/counter-insurgency work, but the Charr seem to have an innate racial belief that they are meant to conquer the world, thereby demonstrating their superiority. (My own Charr Warrior certainly ascribes to such a belief in RP.)

The Charr need an enemy to fight against, whether it be a common one, or against each other. If they do not have one, they will find one, because it is how they define their existence. As I mentioned in my initial post, the only way out of this is if the entirety of Charr society changes so that it is no longer a militant culture (which is very possible, given enough time).

Kalavier.1097:

And you said that getting a “Peaceful” feeling from the citizens (When not dealing with crazy seperatists) was basically odd/bad. Whether it was hate of Charr or of the Fallen Angels.

I found ONCE npcs who was hating on the Fallen Angels. Most other conversations I found was neutral. Treat them as outsides maybe, but not hating.

I saw some random conversations where the one person was against Charr/not wanting to deal with them, while the other was pointing out they used same money, and they’d have to.

Ebonhawke definitely did not give off a feeling of “kitten THE CHARR!”

If the head siegemaster of the charr, and the main anti-siege weapon scout of the vanguard can become friends immediately following the cease-fire, I don’t think the amount of hate is that intensive. The hate is more intense in that pair of old ladies in Ascalon settlement.

You also have to remember that those two soldiers are just that soldiers. They have a better understanding of war than your average citizen. Also, I am fairly certain that even if they hated each other to the core, they would still be polite at the peace talks, if for no other reason than to get this whole ordeal done and over with.

And you are correct, I misspoke. The atmosphere was “peaceful”, but it is also tense and very grave. Like walking into a funeral parlor.

And as for your impressions of human/charr relations, I’ll just give you this from the Movement of the World (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Movement_of_the_World):"The continuing conflict between the humans and the Charr along the borders of Ascalon forced the humans ever farther into the Shiverpeaks. Although open war has ended save on a few small fronts, the hatred between the Charr legions and the human kingdoms never abated. If anything, it is worse than ever before. Ebonhawke stands alone in defiance, supplied by an Asura gate from Krytan territories. "

Many Ascalonians have an extreme dislike of any and all things Charr, many Charr feel the same way. They can be civil, but that doesn’t mean they are going to be buddy-buddy anytime soon. Even Logan and Rytlock have threatened to gut eachother whenever the topic shifts to issues of race and Ascalonian history. The closest they can get to a resolution is “its in the past, let’s start over”. For many Ascalonian families, Charr and Human alike, it is far from being in the past. Both the Charr renegades and the Human separatists act as tethers to a bloody past that keeps large scale murder charges on the heads of the other. This is not even beginning to cover the differences in social dynamics, economic tactics, views on religion, even biology – the charr have trouble hearing human voices, to my understanding. The fact that these two races think they can manage a lasting peace with sharp contrasts is surprising to say the least.

No. The NPCs you encountered were strategically placed by the devs to polarize what is “good” and “evil” within this setting. Being against the treaty, disliking Charr, disliking those “Fallen Angels”, and holding onto anything resembling a GW1 concept of Ascalon and its relationship with the Charr Legions has been polarized as “evil”, with little to no regard to the reasons.

Effectively, if you played Gw1, that means you were an oppressor of the Charr and supported the tyrant Rurik as you defended your ill-gained lands. Not only that, but this also means that your character was merciless butcher of the noble Charr race to the point that your character wears their skins. I just find this turnaround so humorous, lol.

The charr race was never portrayed as “noble”. they were savage and primitive and violent. Even during their golden age empire. They subjugated or destroyed any who dared defy them in the lands they claimed.

So my human is Ascalonian (Personal Story), and he was an orphan, but is mostly because his family was killed by charr and so he was adopted by Krytans and taken to Divinity’s reach trough the Asura portal. Anyway I always wanted him to learn the truth about the death of his parents and join the Separatist. It would make a batter personal story, we could use the Magic of the FoeFire on Jormag and melt him!

LamanKnight.3650:

Magic of the FoeFire on Jormag and melt him!

And then the Foefire shall “resurrect” Jormag as a vengeful Elder Dragon ghost that would require the containment equipment of the Charr. However could the Charr, even with the aid of the Asura, build such a containment unit for such a large and powerful ghost?

Dust
I don’t see how it’s situational when there’s only one way to look at it. That’s like saying the current situation with gravity is that it pulls things down. Doesn’t make sense.
How is it a petty land dispute? Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s…until they wrote that in recently to legitimize them staying there at all of course. You’ve got to be really patronizing not to see that.
You’re right, the Charr were never portrayed as noble. But they certainly are now.

Zax
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot” also applying to the Charr? Sure…if the humans were trying to eradicate them too I guess. But the problem is, that line, according to ANet, doesn’t apply equally to the separatists as well. To them, they are wrong, period.
Also, if what you say is true about the Charr “conquer all” characteristic, why would anyone want to make peace with them at all? It would be stupid to grant them appeasement knowing that they would rather have all your kind dead.

Tobi
I don’t know what “meta-game arguments” means. That word “meta” gets used like so much common slang everywhere, I’m not sure it’s so interchangeable here.

bullyrook.2165:

Effectively, if you played Gw1, that means you were an oppressor of the Charr and supported the tyrant Rurik as you defended your ill-gained lands. Not only that, but this also means that your character was merciless butcher of the noble Charr race to the point that your character wears their skins. I just find this turnaround so humorous, lol.

Ditto

bullyrook.2165:

No. The NPCs you encountered were strategically placed by the devs to polarize what is “good” and “evil” within this setting. Being against the treaty, disliking Charr, disliking those “Fallen Angels”, and holding onto anything resembling a GW1 concept of Ascalon and its relationship with the Charr Legions has been polarized as “evil”, with little to no regard to the reasons.

Effectively, if you played Gw1, that means you were an oppressor of the Charr and supported the tyrant Rurik as you defended your ill-gained lands. Not only that, but this also means that your character was merciless butcher of the noble Charr race to the point that your character wears their skins. I just find this turnaround so humorous, lol.

No. Holding onto the concept of having to retake Ascalon from the Charr has been portrayed as clinging to the past. Rurik left Ascalon and I’m fairly sure he KNEW they wouldn’t be going back anytime soon, if ever. At best, Ascalonians are viewed as stubborn. At worst they are viewed as clinging to the past and refusing to ever move on. Flame legion caused the searing, yet they blame all Charr for the searing. To quote the one minister in DR, the one lady says “WE CAN NEVER TRUST THE CHARR!” and on and on, and the other guy responds with “The Searing is ancient history, get over it.”

No to the entire second Paragraph. Hell, you have Charr seeking to uncover the true events of Rin, and others which openly hate the Flame Legion for what they did during the Searing. I don’t understand how you get the feeling that “supporting Rurik means you where a butcher!” Back then both sides butchered each other. Nobody is flawless and holy (Unlike how some potray the Ascalonians. and I’m not talking about forcing the charr from ascalon, talking being utter kittens to the Krytans offering aid, using Charr skin as armor.. etc).

Hell, actually looking at it, GW2 simply shows a trait the king had in GW1, only now it’s among several people. Stubbornness to the point of endangering or actually killing their fellow countrymen. He REFUSED to consider going to Kryta for aid or safety, even when they openly offered it (Military support against the Charr, and safe haven). Why? Because of the guild wars. The Krytans moved on, he NEVER did. Hell, in Guild Wars beyond IIRC Salma/shining blade sent an envoy to him for aid against the White Mantle (or at least let the Ebon Vanguard send some troops)… and then he basically imprisoned her. I recall she was NEVER heard from again.

So really, the treatment of “ASCALONIANS FOR ASCALON!” hasn’t changed ever. In GW1 they were stubborn to the point of killing themselves, refusing to give up or leave a losing war, and in GW2 stubborn to the point of refusing peace, wanting instead to continue a bitter war and living in fear.

Kalavier

Make no mistake, all the Charr were portrayed as being behind the Searing in GW1. The Flame Legion scapegoat was the vehicle the devs used to make the Charr more accepting as a playable race. Nothing more.

The Krytan rep to Ascalon was White Mantle dude. Even if Adelbern didn’t know their true intentions(which he probably didn’t), it would still seem perfectly reasonable that a regular Krytan ambassador wouldn’t have Ascalons best intentions in mind. One could easily see a non-Mantle Krytan impose some serious strings attached to helping Ascalon. And btw, how benevolent do you think the Mantle would be to Ascalon if they found out the Ascended one(you know, the one that broke the Mursaat’s stranglehold on Kryta and Tyria) was Ascalonian?

Interesting you assume Adelbern had Evennia quietly killed or something. Obviously he was such treacherous villain back then! It’s so amusing to me how easily people see EotN as the true GW1 narrative. It seems GW2 ANet has done a wonderful job of subtley reinforcing this alternate narrative over the years. Kudo’s to them on that I guess.

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier

Make no mistake, all the Charr were portrayed as being behind the Searing in GW1. The Flame Legion scapegoat was the vehicle the devs used to make the Charr more accepting as a playable race. Nothing more.

No. Back then we had a limited point of view, to Ascalonians, all Charr were the same. In EOTN we finally got to see more of their culture, THEIR side. We learned there was a distinct “Flame Legion”/“Shaman” caste which basically was oppressing the rest.

The Krytan rep to Ascalon was White Mantle dude. Even if Adelbern didn’t know their true intentions(which he probably didn’t), it would still seem perfectly reasonable that a regular Krytan ambassador wouldn’t have Ascalons best intentions in mind. One could easily see a non-Mantle Krytan impose some serious strings attached to helping Ascalon. And btw, how benevolent do you think the Mantle would be to Ascalon if they found out the Ascended one(you know, the one that broke the Mursaat’s stranglehold on Kryta and Tyria) was Ascalonian?

Yes, the White Mantle likely had not so nice motives of trying to get more land/followers. But see how they openly accepted the refugees into it, I doubt they’d slam a lot of strings and “rules” to it. Either way, he let his blind hate of Krytans force any possible allies away. Also, that was all BEFORE, long before the flameseeker proph started happening. Nobody would’ve known that as of that time.

Interesting you assume Adelbern had Evennia quietly killed or something. Obviously he was such treacherous villain back then! It’s so amusing to me how easily people see EotN as the true GW1 narrative. It seems GW2 ANet has done a wonderful job of subtley reinforcing this alternate narrative over the years. Kudo’s to them on that I guess.

The King HATES Krytans. Krytan goes to him to ask for aid. She is NEVER heard from again. It’s not a stretch to see how she may have been imprisoned or murdered. If you bothered to play GW1, you’d note his extreme hate of Kryta, so why do you find it so hard to believe?

EOTN, IS PART OF GW1 LORE. It’s funny how you all ignore it and act as if it’s “lesser” simply because it shows some other viewpoints then humanities. It’s not Alternate to go back and show the reason the Charr were so violently attacking humanity. It is literally no different then going back and showing why Shiro killed the emperor (Who the fortune teller was), or who caused Vizier to go forth and cast the spell.

Adelbern was unstable post searing. When Rurik left Ascalon, I felt he KNEW he would never return. It was a barren hellhole. There is no point going back there. Leave it to the charr.

Kalavier.1097:

Adelbern was unstable post searing. When Rurik left Ascalon, I felt he KNEW he would never return. It was a barren hellhole. There is no point going back there. Leave it to the charr.

Ignoring everything else for just a moment, slight correction here.

Rurik left to establish a bulwark against the Charr, he died before he could carry that out. But make no mistake, he had every intent to shove the Charr back across their borders. Futher more, if it were not for the Flame Legion and the Titans, no Charr would have ever set foot in Ascalon. Period. The Charr of every Legion’s leaders willingly set aside their freedoms to take back Ascalon with the Shaman Caste merely leading the charge. After Ascalon was theirs, the Charr betrayed the Shaman caste because they were no longer needed and no longer looked strong in the eyes of the Legions.

If it were not for the Searing, Ascalon would still be under human rule. The Charr stabbed the Flame Legion in the back when they no longer appeared fit to rule. It is just that simple. The human fighters of Ebonhawk have every right to want the war to go on. But we have bigger fish to fry with the Dragons and the Centaurs in Kryta. Humans have to accept that they won’t be reclaiming all of Ascalon. The Charr have to accept that humans will not be moving out of the Fields of Ruin. What I am saying is that the emotions, the hate, the urge for revenge, the distrust, and the mourning of a 200 year war fought in vain for both sides will need time to heal.

No queen can just snap her fingers and say “There! All better! No more mean talking! giggles”. These things take time.

bullyrook.2165:

Kalavier.1097:

Adelbern was unstable post searing. When Rurik left Ascalon, I felt he KNEW he would never return. It was a barren hellhole. There is no point going back there. Leave it to the charr.

Ignoring everything else for just a moment, slight correction here.

Rurik left to establish a bulwark against the Charr, he died before he could carry that out. But make no mistake, he had every intent to shove the Charr back across their borders. Futher more, if it were not for the Flame Legion and the Titans, no Charr would have ever set foot in Ascalon. Period. The Charr of every Legion’s leaders willingly set aside their freedoms to take back Ascalon with the Shaman Caste merely leading the charge. After Ascalon was theirs, the Charr betrayed the Shaman caste because they were no longer needed and no longer looked strong in the eyes of the Legions.

If it were not for the Searing, Ascalon would still be under human rule. The Charr stabbed the Flame Legion in the back when they no longer appeared fit to rule. It is just that simple. The human fighters of Ebonhawk have every right to want the war to go on. But we have bigger fish to fry with the Dragons and the Centaurs in Kryta. Humans have to accept that they won’t be reclaiming all of Ascalon. The Charr have to accept that humans will not be moving out of the Fields of Ruin. What I am saying is that the emotions, the hate, the urge for revenge, the distrust, and the mourning of a 200 year war fought in vain for both sides will need time to heal.

No queen can just snap her fingers and say “There! All better! No more mean talking! giggles”. These things take time.

Rurik left because he understood how hopeless the situation in Ascalon was.

“I am not afraid, father. I have seen them in battle. Rin has been destroyed! It would be wise to escape while we can. We should make for Kryta and rebuild our strength. Not wait here for death.”
“People of Rin! Your king will lead you to death. If you wish to see better days, if you wish to live, then leave the beasts behind and follow me over the Shiverpeaks. We make for Kryta and a new life, free of the Charr.”

Certainly doesn’t sound like he truly intended to come back in the short term, if ever.

The Charr “betrayed” the Shaman caste/flame Legion because the Flame legion relied on the Titans for their power, and once the titans were defeated it showed the other ones that the gods weren’t really gods. Then they tried destroyers as gods, and it failed. The rest of the Charr ‘betrayed’ them because the oppression FAILED.

Charr accept the humans won’t be moving out. THEY GAVE THE FIELDS OF RUINS TO THE HUMANS IN THE TREATY. Yeah. The Charr who don’t accept it are the hostile ones in the area.

Some humans don’t accept it, others do.

Queen Jennah isn’t snapping her fingers and saying “All friends now”. I think her placing the Fallen Angels is simply a smart reinforcement of the Ebon Vanguard, and keeping her investments in repairing that Asura gate as well as supplying the city are secure. Because she was the one who paid for it. Hell, the ones who are more wanting to “snap fingers get it over with” are the Charr, especially the Iron Legion rep.

Obsidian.1328:

Tobi
I don’t know what “meta-game arguments” means. That word “meta” gets used like so much common slang everywhere, I’m not sure it’s so interchangeable here.

Meta-game arguments are when you aren’t talking about the lore for why things are there but real-world or mechanical concerns. I mean, it’s all fine and good because they are potentially real reasons. Except . . .

We’ve determined for meta-game purposes that there will most likely never be a reclamation campaign against the charr. As soon as you step into that level of discussion, there’s nothing you can say which can support the idea it would/should happen.

So, more to the point, when people keep going “oh they only wrote that so the charr could be playable”, that’s a “meta-game argument” since it relies not on lore but on mechanics and outside influences. Especially since it also ignores two points:

- There is not many sources of lore which was ever available during Guild Wars 1 due to not having charr sources available. The invading forces did not see any reason to really sit down with someone and discuss matters, and since it’s been pretty well “established” EOTN was written solely to transition to GW2’s lore then it could be drawn Pyre’s little revolution was written so the charr could be something other than orc stand-ins. All we know is from the (unreliable) human narratives and writings.

- There was never much unofficial lore talked about from the writers about the charr, until EOTN. So we don’t even have any proof there was a massive shift since it’s rather impossible to shift something which didn’t exist in the first place.

Kalavier.1097:

Rurik left because he understood how hopeless the situation in Ascalon was.

“I am not afraid, father. I have seen them in battle. Rin has been destroyed! It would be wise to escape while we can. We should make for Kryta and rebuild our strength. Not wait here for death.”
“People of Rin! Your king will lead you to death. If you wish to see better days, if you wish to live, then leave the beasts behind and follow me over the Shiverpeaks. We make for Kryta and a new life, free of the Charr.”

Certainly doesn’t sound like he truly intended to come back in the short term, if ever.

Maybe not in the short term, be he most definitely had no intention of allowing the Charr to get away with attempted genocide and effectively nuking his kingdom. “Rebuild our strength”. What would you rebuild your strength for if not an assault?

Kalavier.1097:

The Charr “betrayed” the Shaman caste/flame Legion because the Flame legion relied on the Titans for their power, and once the titans were defeated it showed the other ones that the gods weren’t really gods. Then they tried destroyers as gods, and it failed. The rest of the Charr ‘betrayed’ them because the oppression FAILED.

You speak of the Charr as if they are heroes. In truth it is simply one form of tyranny in favor of another. Free expression, free speech, and all forms of individuality are stifled in the Charr culture. You do as you are ordered to do or you die. How is that any different from the Flame Legion? Oh, right, they lied about their gods. Nice way to excuse insubordination – Charr terminology, not mine. It doesn’t matter if their gods were fake or not. All the Charr want was the power to overthrow humanity and that is what they got. Effectively, the Charr made a deal with a proverbial devil. All their woes they brought on themselves.

Kalavier.1097:

Charr accept the humans won’t be moving out. THEY GAVE THE FIELDS OF RUINS TO THE HUMANS IN THE TREATY. Yeah. The Charr who don’t accept it are the hostile ones in the area.

Inside voice, friend. You effectively just repeated what I already said.

Kalavier.1097:

Some humans don’t accept it, others do.

Accepting the conditions of a legal contract and being fully satisfied with said contract are two different things.

Kalavier.1097:

Queen Jennah isn’t snapping her fingers and saying “All friends now”. I think her placing the Fallen Angels is simply a smart reinforcement of the Ebon Vanguard, and keeping her investments in repairing that Asura gate as well as supplying the city are secure. Because she was the one who paid for it. Hell, the ones who are more wanting to “snap fingers get it over with” are the Charr, especially the Iron Legion rep.

Then why the hey didn’t she just transfer solders to the Ebon Vanguard? What she did was stupid because the Fallen Angels forced the Vanguard out of their own barracks. What kind of message does that send? “You lesser soldiers who have seen more combat than the lot of us put together had best clear out. The REAL heroes are here! Shoo!”

Kalavier.1097:

No. Back then we had a limited point of view, to Ascalonians, all Charr were the same. In EOTN we finally got to see more of their culture, THEIR side. We learned there was a distinct “Flame Legion”/“Shaman” caste which basically was oppressing the rest.

Nope. It was the authors point of view, not necessarily the humans. Had the original authors given some semblance of caste domination, or even castes for that matter, then you’d have a point. In all of Proph there is zero indication of this.

Yes, the White Mantle likely had not so nice motives of trying to get more land/followers. But see how they openly accepted the refugees into it, I doubt they’d slam a lot of strings and “rules” to it. Either way, he let his blind hate of Krytans force any possible allies away. Also, that was all BEFORE, long before the flameseeker proph started happening. Nobody would’ve known that as of that time.

The Mantle had strings attached even for the PC, they wanted you to gather Chosen for them for one thing. It’s a short leap to think they would scour the refugees for more, or force them to help. And it was like 2 years before dude, the Mursaat arrived right after the Searing.

The King HATES Krytans. Krytan goes to him to ask for aid. She is NEVER heard from again. It’s not a stretch to see how she may have been imprisoned or murdered. If you bothered to play GW1, you’d note his extreme hate of Kryta, so why do you find it so hard to believe?

Well the guild wars were over, and he didn’t imprison and murder that Mantle rep outside the city did he? It’s hard to believe because he had no reason to, Adelbern doesn’t just kill Krytans on sight…that’s a silly thought.

EOTN, IS PART OF GW1 LORE.

No it’s not. The sooner you realize that, the better off you’ll be.

Adelbern was unstable post searing. When Rurik left Ascalon, I felt he KNEW he would never return. It was a barren hellhole. There is no point going back there. Leave it to the charr.

It was out of character for Rurik to lose faith in Ascalon so quick after Rin, he was a more avid Charr hater than even Adelbern…and was known for never giving up. The authors needed a storyline reason to get the PC over the Shiverpeaks, and they chose the King/Prince argument to do that. It’s the same idea with that crazy Meerak. The story wouldn’t make much sense if the PC just suddenly decided to up and leave his home in the middle of a war. And they couldn’t simply use “to go look for help” because the linear storyline never returned to Ascalon. It had to be a solid farewell. Rurik was the obvious choice because he’s with you throughout it all, almost a friend. They couldn’t have the king do it, and it would have been a little flat if they used a minor player like Devona or Barradin.
The point in going back to that “barren hellhole” as you put it, is the same reason the GW2 authors use for the Charr to occupy it. It’s their home.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Obsidian.1328:

Tobi
I don’t know what “meta-game arguments” means. That word “meta” gets used like so much common slang everywhere, I’m not sure it’s so interchangeable here.

Meta-game arguments are when you aren’t talking about the lore for why things are there but real-world or mechanical concerns. I mean, it’s all fine and good because they are potentially real reasons. Except . . .

We’ve determined for meta-game purposes that there will most likely never be a reclamation campaign against the charr. As soon as you step into that level of discussion, there’s nothing you can say which can support the idea it would/should happen.

So, more to the point, when people keep going “oh they only wrote that so the charr could be playable”, that’s a “meta-game argument” since it relies not on lore but on mechanics and outside influences. Especially since it also ignores two points:

- There is not many sources of lore which was ever available during Guild Wars 1 due to not having charr sources available. The invading forces did not see any reason to really sit down with someone and discuss matters, and since it’s been pretty well “established” EOTN was written solely to transition to GW2’s lore then it could be drawn Pyre’s little revolution was written so the charr could be something other than orc stand-ins. All we know is from the (unreliable) human narratives and writings.

- There was never much unofficial lore talked about from the writers about the charr, until EOTN. So we don’t even have any proof there was a massive shift since it’s rather impossible to shift something which didn’t exist in the first place.

If it’s a meta-game argument to get inside the authors’ minds through the lens of the game-world, then there’s nothing wrong with that at all. After all, the story was birthed by them, and every single subtle intention and idea is part of the lore, whether it’s written down or not. You need to learn to read between the lines and view the story not as a flowchart of variables, but rather a painting. No one who really appreciates a Van Gogh would say, “wow that dude likes swirls!” In other words, it’s not enough to simply take the story as a series of related events with concrete facts. You have to try and get inside the authors’ minds and figure out not just what you see, and not even only what they want you to see. But also what they are unwittingly giving away as pieces of their personality attach themselves to the story.

For instance, take Jeff Grubb. Great fantasy writer. I have no doubt the Asura, and much of the philosophical underpinnings associated with them, are related to his earlier work with the D&D Spelljammer series. Fractals, the Great Alchemy, chaos magic; all point to this. I’m sure he was ecstatic to be able to expand on the Mists idea. It’s also no coincidence he was brought on for Nightfall, after all, the Al-Qadim D&D setting came from him.

My point is, you can’t separate the author’s mind from the finished product. And since there’s always little information on who exactly writes what parts, we have to try and gird what the author is trying to convey through what we experience. So no, I don’t see anything wrong with philosophizing on what the intentions of the story originally were, meta-gaming or not. It’s actually one of the best ways to try and get at the truth of a thing.