Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: bullyrook.2165

bullyrook.2165

How you’ve been sounding. You said your purpose is to ‘shame’ Anet, and all you’ve been doing really is complaining that they went and put in information into an almost entirely blank area of the lore, the Charr motivations.

Well, in fairness we knew as much about the assaulting Charr then as we do the Krait, the Ogers, and Centaurs now. We mostly chalk up their actions to “we want more land/wealth/slaves”

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Kav -snip-

The Separatists are deliberately portrayed as single-minded fanatics because it suits ANets purposes for this game to do so. They couldn’t, for instance, have them look sympathetic to the pc in any way because that would undermine the cultural meta for the whole game…i.e. races unite to defeat uber dragons.

For those npc’s you mention, it’s ok that they dislike the current situation, but it’s not ok to do something about. There’s a difference there too.

The centaurs, I would argue, have a similar situation. Had ANet decided, as an alternative, to keep Ascalon human and have Centaurs overrun Kryta to be used as a playable race(instead of Charr), I would have had issue equally.

But you’re still missing the point entirely. The reason why all of this exists in the first place isn’t because of any lore perspective at all. It’s because of two reasons: 1) The graphical detail of the game only permitting a certain amount of the face of Tyria to be rendered, at least at launch. Knowing this before hand, they had to make hard choices on which races occupy which areas. Apparently there wasn’t enough time or space to give new races land outside the established human areas…so they simply took over human land to do so. And 2) Knowing also that they wanted to provide racial parity with this game(again, in sync with the overall theme of the game), they had to choose only one spot where the humans would be. Obviously Kryta took that cake, and Ascalon was an obvious choice for the Charr.

The point is, ANet didn’t care enough for the original game to keep any of those human areas intact. Much of Kryta is now Sylvari and Asura land. And don’t forget that what they did to the dwarves is basically the same thing they did with the Ascalons and Charr. They killed them off to make way for the Norn, the only difference is they did so heroically. This, of course, was all decided on many years ago with EotN.

GW2 is all about looks. Taking the time and effort to design such a supremely gorgeous world(and it is very gorgeous), while allowing for 4 new playable races, meant the end of the human nations on Tyria. Not because of any long-unraveling narrative just now unfolding. Not because of humanities early pride or usurpation of the land. And not because of any long-sleeping dragons.

It was because 1) they wanted it to look pretty, and 2) they want us to accept their new version of Tyrian morality where in-fighting is stupid and ugly and barbaric and we should all hold hands now and let ANet teach us how to be better people. Give me a frickin break.

It would have been better(and more honest) had they kept it like it was and, you know, use the other 95% of the globe for new races. A small cut in graphical quality is a very small price to pay for staying true to the narrative which, by the way, made possible this game.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

No, Charr were always the one’s that humans took it from. The contention is the homeland. Even in Proph, Ascalon was considered the Charr’s “southern borders”. EotN outright states the Charr homeland is north of there. Saying that was simply the humans’ point-of-view on the issue is a huge cop-out, for which there is no evidence of at all until some dude just up and “decides” it’s the case now. Using that old b.s. technique of in-game bias to enact a cultural paradigm shift is not new, and quite frankly I’m surprised people accept it so readily. I suppose you think Glint was always an ED champion, and not a separate and unique individual whose presence had nothing to do with them?

At least try to view the history without GW2 blinders on.

Oh, I think out of the two of us, Im the one seeing clearly. you’ve already acknowleged the double standard exists.

Charr did have their homelands at the southern borders but their “ancestral homeland” included Ascalon. That’s the homeland of their ………ancestors. But we already knew that humans took somebodies homeland and made it into their own homeland. Blinders is refusing to factor in that it was always someone elses land before it was humanities.

Without GW2 to answer the question, I’d be asking just who’s homeland it was before humanity took it.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

Kav -snip-

The Separatists are deliberately portrayed as single-minded fanatics because it suits ANets purposes for this game to do so. They couldn’t, for instance, have them look sympathetic to the pc in any way because that would undermine the cultural meta for the whole game…i.e. races unite to defeat uber dragons.

For those npc’s you mention, it’s ok that they dislike the current situation, but it’s not ok to do something about. There’s a difference there too.

Actually, there are some which are more sympathetic. Thing is, like ANY extrimist group… they aren’t going to be pretty. They aren’t a “Ascalon for humans!” group in actuality. They are a “kitten Kryta, kitten Charr!” group.

The centaurs, I would argue, have a similar situation. Had ANet decided, as an alternative, to keep Ascalon human and have Centaurs overrun Kryta to be used as a playable race(instead of Charr), I would have had issue equally.

So it’s bad for the Centaurs to be shown to retake their lands from humans who have explicitly taken lands from them…

But you’re still missing the point entirely. The reason why all of this exists in the first place isn’t because of any lore perspective at all. It’s because of two reasons: 1) The graphical detail of the game only permitting a certain amount of the face of Tyria to be rendered, at least at launch. Knowing this before hand, they had to make hard choices on which races occupy which areas. Apparently there wasn’t enough time or space to give new races land outside the established human areas…so they simply took over human land to do so. And 2) Knowing also that they wanted to provide racial parity with this game(again, in sync with the overall theme of the game), they had to choose only one spot where the humans would be. Obviously Kryta took that cake, and Ascalon was an obvious choice for the Charr.

The point is, ANet didn’t care enough for the original game to keep any of those human areas intact. Much of Kryta is now Sylvari and Asura land. And don’t forget that what they did to the dwarves is basically the same thing they did with the Ascalons and Charr. They killed them off to make way for the Norn, the only difference is they did so heroically. This, of course, was all decided on many years ago with EotN.

Realistically, Ascalon wasn’t going to last, period. All they had was two cities as of post-searing, Rin was destroyed. Ascalon city, and a bunch of ruins. ANYBODY could conquer it. A focused Charr invasion (Likely, regardless of Titan loss) would destroy whats left.

And that’s exactly what happened.

GW2 is all about looks. Taking the time and effort to design such a supremely gorgeous world(and it is very gorgeous), while allowing for 4 new playable races, meant the end of the human nations on Tyria. Not because of any long-unraveling narrative just now unfolding. Not because of humanities early pride or usurpation of the land. And not because of any long-sleeping dragons.

It would have been better(and more honest) had they kept it like it was and, you know, use the other 95% of the globe for new races. A small cut in graphical quality is a very small price to pay for staying true to the narrative which, by the way, made possible this game.

Ascalon was a dead person clinging to life support. Kryta was rebuilding. Of the two nations, which do you see lasting 250 years? I see Kryta lasting. If you didn’t see that coming in the lore, I pity you. You also basically say “Not because of humanities usurping the land” yet that is EXACTLY what happened to Ascalon. So you would accept that… besides when it actually happens?

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Tobias Trueflight.8350

Tobias Trueflight.8350

But overall? If any particular game just isn’t any good I’ll just shelve it or throw it in a box and move on. What’s the point in needing to hold companies “responsible” when it’s not really going to do more for my life than keep giving me a distraction from what duties I have?

If it doesn’t really matter to you, why are you here?

Why are you?

To shame ANet.

Well, good luck with that. Let’s see how that turns out for you.

To return somewhat belatedly to the topic. Again.

It’d be far more interesting to see the asura go after their homelands underground rather than humans returning to Ascalon. We’ve already been there, and there’s this problem of a rather strong grip by a race who pretty much have been fighting someone, somewhere, nonstop for as long as humanity. If not longer, depending on whether charr were native to Tyria.

Far more interesting to mount an expedition to go kill Primordius now. Especially if that can net the asura the Central Transfer Chamber and the associated network which once existed.

Seeking assistants for the Asuran Catapult Project. Applicants will be tested for aerodynamics.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Frosch.7809

Frosch.7809

Oh, I think out of the two of us, Im the one seeing clearly. you’ve already acknowleged the double standard exists.

Charr did have their homelands at the southern borders but their “ancestral homeland” included Ascalon. That’s the homeland of their ………ancestors. But we already knew that humans took somebodies homeland and made it into their own homeland. Blinders is refusing to factor in that it was always someone elses land before it was humanities.

Without GW2 to answer the question, I’d be asking just who’s homeland it was before humanity took it.

What i see as a double standard is calling Ascalon the Charr’s ancestral homeland and accepting their actions such as genocide, destruction of the ecology and plenty of other things (i am not aiming at you specifically here, Dustfinger).

After a thousand years Ascalon was long human land. It’s Charr land again today. But it is so by military force, not because they had a moral claim to it. The Charr’s own actions (mostly the Searing) prevented them from having any rights to Ascalon imo.

Ingame in GW2 it is actually their own justification for their deeds to call it their ancestral homeland. It’s the Charr’s point of view, not a neutral one and one should not expect players to simply accept that as the (only) truth. Truth is a highly subjective thing in GW2 and can change on a whim.

[Yak’s Bend]

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

What i see as a double standard is calling Ascalon the Charr’s ancestral homeland and accepting their actions such as genocide, destruction of the ecology and plenty of other things (i am not aiming at you specifically here, Dustfinger).

After a thousand years Ascalon was long human land. It’s Charr land again today. But it is so by military force, not because they had a moral claim to it. The Charr’s own actions (mostly the Searing) prevented them from having any rights to Ascalon imo.

Ingame in GW2 it is actually their own justification for their deeds to call it their ancestral homeland. It’s the Charr’s point of view, not a neutral one and one should not expect players to simply accept that as the (only) truth. Truth is a highly subjective thing in GW2 and can change on a whim.

but that’s not really a double standard. That’s saying any country loses all rights to it’s land when they act like pee holes. That may be an opinion of what they deserve but it has nothing to do with cold hard fact that they used to live there.

If the humans can have a moral claim on the land after they stole it, why wouldn’t the charr be able to redeem that same moral claim?

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

Nobody is saying the searing was warranted or right. Infact, a large chunk of Charr think of it as bad.

Flame legion is, and was bad guys. That’s the BIGGEST problem I see here and ingame (even among friends). People universally hate the charr, but in reality they just hate the flame legion actions.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: bullyrook.2165

bullyrook.2165

Nobody is saying the searing was warranted or right. Infact, a large chunk of Charr think of it as bad.

Flame legion is, and was bad guys. That’s the BIGGEST problem I see here and ingame (even among friends). People universally hate the charr, but in reality they just hate the flame legion actions.

And yet Pyre Fierceshot was an advocate of the Searing and was proud that his father had a hand in it?

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

No, Charr were always the one’s that humans took it from. The contention is the homeland. Even in Proph, Ascalon was considered the Charr’s “southern borders”. EotN outright states the Charr homeland is north of there. Saying that was simply the humans’ point-of-view on the issue is a huge cop-out, for which there is no evidence of at all until some dude just up and “decides” it’s the case now. Using that old b.s. technique of in-game bias to enact a cultural paradigm shift is not new, and quite frankly I’m surprised people accept it so readily. I suppose you think Glint was always an ED champion, and not a separate and unique individual whose presence had nothing to do with them?

At least try to view the history without GW2 blinders on.

Oh, I think out of the two of us, Im the one seeing clearly. you’ve already acknowleged the double standard exists.

Charr did have their homelands at the southern borders but their “ancestral homeland” included Ascalon. That’s the homeland of their ………ancestors. But we already knew that humans took somebodies homeland and made it into their own homeland. Blinders is refusing to factor in that it was always someone elses land before it was humanities.

Without GW2 to answer the question, I’d be asking just who’s homeland it was before humanity took it.

It was nobody’s homeland before that…that’s the point. Unless you want to say Grawl or Gargoyle or something. You seem to have a different definition of homeland. Being inside someone’s territory doesn’t make you in their homeland. The Blazeridge Steppes were to the Charr what the Italian peninsula was to Rome. Stepping across Hadrian’s wall in England didn’t put you in Roman homeland, just their territory. Why are you arguing this, I thought this was a no-brainer?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

Nobody is saying the searing was warranted or right. Infact, a large chunk of Charr think of it as bad.

Flame legion is, and was bad guys. That’s the BIGGEST problem I see here and ingame (even among friends). People universally hate the charr, but in reality they just hate the flame legion actions.

And yet Pyre Fierceshot was an advocate of the Searing and was proud that his father had a hand in it?

And Pyre Fierceshot is a chunk of the Charr population?
Perhaps not a LARGE chunk think of the searing badly, but a number do. There is one in Diessa who speaks about it. Zalvax Brokenclaw

“It was originally a military outpost. During the war, the Flame Legion—murderous villains—started attacking settlements. Many Ascalonian citizens fled to Oldgate, but in vain. "
“The Flame Legion hit the outpost like a hurricane. They didn’t just kill inhabitants, they busted down the walls and tore the place apart. I guess the ghosts here don’t realise we’re not the Flame Legion. "

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Nobody is saying the searing was warranted or right. Infact, a large chunk of Charr think of it as bad.

Flame legion is, and was bad guys. That’s the BIGGEST problem I see here and ingame (even among friends). People universally hate the charr, but in reality they just hate the flame legion actions.

No. Just No. That is the biggest bunch of crap ANet has tried to lay on us. Until GW2 development, it was ALL Charr that wanted to roflstomp humanity. Don’t put that crap out there so players will believe it, it’s irresponsible.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

Nobody is saying the searing was warranted or right. Infact, a large chunk of Charr think of it as bad.

Flame legion is, and was bad guys. That’s the BIGGEST problem I see here and ingame (even among friends). People universally hate the charr, but in reality they just hate the flame legion actions.

No. Just No. That is the biggest bunch of crap ANet has tried to lay on us. Until GW2 development, it was ALL Charr that wanted to roflstomp humanity. Don’t put that crap out there so players will believe it, it’s irresponsible.

A: I’m talking ‘modern’ Charr, not the charr of prophecies time.
B: Yes, charr wanted to stomp humanity. Then they had a leadership change. Now they view the war as done (as it was mainly about Ascalon) and focus on bigger threats.
C: SOME Charr praise the searing and the leader of the Charr at the battle of Rin. Others think the tale is twisted and seek the truth. Some hate humans, others hate what the Flame Legion did. They don’t all share the same viewpoint.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

So it’s bad for the Centaurs to be shown to retake their lands from humans who have explicitly taken lands from them…

Is Kryta their homeland?

Realistically, Ascalon wasn’t going to last, period. All they had was two cities as of post-searing, Rin was destroyed. Ascalon city, and a bunch of ruins. ANYBODY could conquer it. A focused Charr invasion (Likely, regardless of Titan loss) would destroy whats left.

And that’s exactly what happened.

It was supposed to last. The Empire Divided passages attest to that, which, btw, were written by the same author.

Ascalon was a dead person clinging to life support. Kryta was rebuilding. Of the two nations, which do you see lasting 250 years? I see Kryta lasting. If you didn’t see that coming in the lore, I pity you. You also basically say “Not because of humanities usurping the land” yet that is EXACTLY what happened to Ascalon. So you would accept that… besides when it actually happens?

I see them both lasting actually. But I certainly wouldn’t have had it 250 years later and modernized the game with tanks and lasers and flying battleships…another argument.
Also, all humans usurped the land from Tyrians, they aren’t from here remember? The moral schtick of GW1 was to provide impetus and reason to why the world was burning. Some of that was due to humanity, and some of it was plain old evilness.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Nobody is saying the searing was warranted or right. Infact, a large chunk of Charr think of it as bad.

Flame legion is, and was bad guys. That’s the BIGGEST problem I see here and ingame (even among friends). People universally hate the charr, but in reality they just hate the flame legion actions.

No. Just No. That is the biggest bunch of crap ANet has tried to lay on us. Until GW2 development, it was ALL Charr that wanted to roflstomp humanity. Don’t put that crap out there so players will believe it, it’s irresponsible.

A: I’m talking ‘modern’ Charr, not the charr of prophecies time.
B: Yes, charr wanted to stomp humanity. Then they had a leadership change. Now they view the war as done (as it was mainly about Ascalon) and focus on bigger threats.
C: SOME Charr praise the searing and the leader of the Charr at the battle of Rin. Others think the tale is twisted and seek the truth. Some hate humans, others hate what the Flame Legion did. They don’t all share the same viewpoint.

Yes, now they don’t. But back then they did. It wasn’t the Flame Legion forcing them into anything back then, it was all of them. That’s how they were written and portrayed by the author.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

It was nobody’s homeland before that…that’s the point. Unless you want to say Grawl or Gargoyle or something. You seem to have a different definition of homeland. Being inside someone’s territory doesn’t make you in their homeland. The Blazeridge Steppes were to the Charr what the Italian peninsula was to Rome. Stepping across Hadrian’s wall in England didn’t put you in Roman homeland, just their territory. Why are you arguing this, I thought this was a no-brainer?

How do we know that it was nobodies homeland? We always knew that humanity took it from somebody. This “no-brainer” is based on unsupported assumptions that turned out to be wrong. before a-net said it was charr land we knew nothing of the history of the people who humanity took it from. saying that it was nobodies implies that we knew anything about it pre-humanity.

edit: I’d ask what your definition of homeland is. because anything that could qualify Ascalon as humanities homeland will also support it being a possibility for charr ancestrial homeland before we ever knew that it actually was.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

So it’s bad for the Centaurs to be shown to retake their lands from humans who have explicitly taken lands from them…

Is Kryta their homeland?

Does it matter? Humans explicitly took land from them, so they should just sit back and accept this right?

Realistically, Ascalon wasn’t going to last, period. All they had was two cities as of post-searing, Rin was destroyed. Ascalon city, and a bunch of ruins. ANYBODY could conquer it. A focused Charr invasion (Likely, regardless of Titan loss) would destroy whats left.

And that’s exactly what happened.

It was supposed to last. The Empire Divided passages attest to that, which, btw, were written by the same author.

I’m unsure how that attests to it… bar having events from factions (which took place same year as proph post searing). Infact, they basically just have mention of factions events as of him wandering around(Shiro that is). I see nothing that really supports Ascalon lasting for many, many years.

Ascalon was a dead person clinging to life support. Kryta was rebuilding. Of the two nations, which do you see lasting 250 years? I see Kryta lasting. If you didn’t see that coming in the lore, I pity you. You also basically say “Not because of humanities usurping the land” yet that is EXACTLY what happened to Ascalon. So you would accept that… besides when it actually happens?

I see them both lasting actually. But I certainly wouldn’t have had it 250 years later and modernized the game with tanks and lasers and flying battleships…another argument.
Also, all humans usurped the land from Tyrians, they aren’t from here remember? The moral schtick of GW1 was to provide impetus and reason to why the world was burning. Some of that was due to humanity, and some of it was plain old evilness.

[/quote]

Ascalon had basically no natural resources, very little farmable land (if any), water was apparently scarce, food likely worse off. and numbers dwindle heavily.

How could they last many years, especially if the Charr decided to finish it off and charge again? They had ONE city as of proph (Rin was destroyed), and handful of outposts of structures elsewhere. I think Ascalon surviving for a long while (Especially under the rule of Adelbern who refused ANY aid from Kryta) is unrealistic to the lore.

Yes, now they don’t. But back then they did. It wasn’t the Flame Legion forcing them into anything back then, it was all of them. That’s how they were written and portrayed by the author.

The charr received barely ANY writing in Proph, so nobody could really make out anything of their culture other then “They revere fire!” and “They hate humans.” We NEVER saw them talk, just charge and roar.

So again, how can we say the shamans or flame legion weren’t forcing them or in control? Because we have NO indicators of their culture at all.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Tobias Trueflight.8350

Tobias Trueflight.8350

The charr received barely ANY writing in Proph, so nobody could really make out anything of their culture other then “They revere fire!” and “They hate humans.” We NEVER saw them talk, just charge and roar.

So again, how can we say the shamans or flame legion weren’t forcing them or in control? Because we have NO indicators of their culture at all.

That’s really the problem – they were cardboard stand-ins for orcs/goblins/whatever. They had very little real . . . well, anything to them until Eye of the North. Which, notably, certain people like to lump together with Guild Wars 2 and not Guild Wars Trilogy (Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall).

So if you look at just the Trilogy at all? Not much there to work with as far as characterization goes.

Which, naturally, means it’s a crime to add any.

Seeking assistants for the Asuran Catapult Project. Applicants will be tested for aerodynamics.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

It was nobody’s homeland before that…that’s the point. Unless you want to say Grawl or Gargoyle or something. You seem to have a different definition of homeland. Being inside someone’s territory doesn’t make you in their homeland. The Blazeridge Steppes were to the Charr what the Italian peninsula was to Rome. Stepping across Hadrian’s wall in England didn’t put you in Roman homeland, just their territory. Why are you arguing this, I thought this was a no-brainer?

How do we know that it was nobodies homeland? We always knew that humanity took it from somebody. This “no-brainer” is based on unsupported assumptions that turned out to be wrong. before a-net said it was charr land we knew nothing of the history of the people who humanity took it from. saying that it was nobodies implies that we knew anything about it pre-humanity.

edit: I’d ask what your definition of homeland is. because anything that could qualify Ascalon as humanities homeland will also support it being a possibility for charr ancestrial homeland before we ever knew that it actually was.

It wasn’t a wrong assumption. If the Proph writers had meant for it to be some Charr homeland, they certainly would have mentioned it at least once in the whole campaign. There was never any indication, whether through the lore nor through direct quotes, of it having been some ancestral homeland of the Charr. You’d think, at any point in that long saga, you’d hear a Charr say something to the effect of “We’re taking our home back!” You don’t because they aren’t from there…well that and they couldn’t even speak the common tongue. It probably would have been a better story had the writer decided to do that, but they didn’t.

Definition of homeland? Just use my Rome example. Oh and Ascalon is Ascalons homeland, not humanities in general.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Does it matter? Humans explicitly took land from them, so they should just sit back and accept this right?

It does matter, yes.

Realistically, Ascalon wasn’t going to last, period. All they had was two cities as of post-searing, Rin was destroyed. Ascalon city, and a bunch of ruins. ANYBODY could conquer it. A focused Charr invasion (Likely, regardless of Titan loss) would destroy whats left.

How do you know they only had one city left? You know, everyone is so quick to judge Ascalon on only what you see in the game and nothing else. Yet when it comes to the Charr, they are assumed to have legions and legions up north just waiting to descend south. If the explorable lands of post-searing Ascalon is all you count for that kingdom, then I get to only count what Charr I see north of the wall. Sound fair?

I’m unsure how that attests to it… bar having events from factions (which took place same year as proph post searing). Infact, they basically just have mention of factions events as of him wandering around(Shiro that is). I see nothing that really supports Ascalon lasting for many, many years.

What does Shiro have to do with it?
[qutoe]Ascalon had basically no natural resources, very little farmable land (if any), water was apparently scarce, food likely worse off. and numbers dwindle heavily.

How could they last many years, especially if the Charr decided to finish it off and charge again? They had ONE city as of proph (Rin was destroyed), and handful of outposts of structures elsewhere. I think Ascalon surviving for a long while (Especially under the rule of Adelbern who refused ANY aid from Kryta) is unrealistic to the lore.[/quote]
Again, see above.

The charr received barely ANY writing in Proph, so nobody could really make out anything of their culture other then “They revere fire!” and “They hate humans.” We NEVER saw them talk, just charge and roar.

So again, how can we say the shamans or flame legion weren’t forcing them or in control? Because we have NO indicators of their culture at all.

Did you see any of them forcing others to do stuff? We’re they portrayed as totalitarian or something? They were meant to be the main protagonist of Proph, and then forgotten. It’s great they rewrote as something different, but having the “Flame Legion” forcing all the other Charr to do their bidding was included so that we(as players) can’t legitimately blame them for trying to burn Tyria back then, nothing more.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

It wasn’t a wrong assumption. If the Proph writers had meant for it to be some Charr homeland, they certainly would have mentioned it at least once in the whole campaign. There was never any indication, whether through the lore nor through direct quotes, of it having been some ancestral homeland of the Charr. You’d think, at any point in that long saga, you’d hear a Charr say something to the effect of “We’re taking our home back!” You don’t because they aren’t from there…well that and they couldn’t even speak the common tongue. It probably would have been a better story had the writer decided to do that, but they didn’t.

Definition of homeland? Just use my Rome example. Oh and Ascalon is Ascalons homeland, not humanities in general.

I’m asking for an actual definition. Any specific definition will equally support charr homeland if it can support human homeland.

So, how do we know it was nobodies homeland before humanity took it?

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Nicholas S Lin.6187

Nicholas S Lin.6187

It wasn’t a wrong assumption. If the Proph writers had meant for it to be some Charr homeland, they certainly would have mentioned it at least once in the whole campaign. There was never any indication, whether through the lore nor through direct quotes, of it having been some ancestral homeland of the Charr. You’d think, at any point in that long saga, you’d hear a Charr say something to the effect of “We’re taking our home back!” You don’t because they aren’t from there…well that and they couldn’t even speak the common tongue. It probably would have been a better story had the writer decided to do that, but they didn’t.

Definition of homeland? Just use my Rome example. Oh and Ascalon is Ascalons homeland, not humanities in general.

I’m asking for an actual definition. Any specific definition will equally support charr homeland if it can support human homeland.

So, how do we know it was nobodies homeland before humanity took it?

Based on available evidence its clear that it was Humanity that lay claim to Ascalon as a homeland first. And thus built many cities on said land. The claim is widely accept by every human. From the modest farm-hand right up to and including the reigning monarch of the day right up to King Adelbern. In fact “For Ascalon” is a common greeting used by all Ascalonian humans towards any other human or friend.

At no time did the pc see any evidence that any significant group of npc humans or any npc in fact claiming otherwise during the whole Prophecies campaign. It can be seen , taken together there is at least circumstantial evidence that it was Humans that formed the first legitimate claim to the land and held it up to and including the events of the “Eye of the North”.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

It wasn’t a wrong assumption. If the Proph writers had meant for it to be some Charr homeland, they certainly would have mentioned it at least once in the whole campaign. There was never any indication, whether through the lore nor through direct quotes, of it having been some ancestral homeland of the Charr. You’d think, at any point in that long saga, you’d hear a Charr say something to the effect of “We’re taking our home back!” You don’t because they aren’t from there…well that and they couldn’t even speak the common tongue. It probably would have been a better story had the writer decided to do that, but they didn’t.

Definition of homeland? Just use my Rome example. Oh and Ascalon is Ascalons homeland, not humanities in general.

I’m asking for an actual definition. Any specific definition will equally support charr homeland if it can support human homeland.

So, how do we know it was nobodies homeland before humanity took it?

Based on available evidence its clear that it was Humanity that lay claim to Ascalon as a homeland first. And thus built many cities on said land. The claim is widely accept by every human. From the modest farm-hand right up to and including the reigning monarch of the day right up to King Adelbern. In fact “For Ascalon” is a common greeting used by all Ascalonian humans towards any other human or friend.

At no time did the pc see any evidence that any significant group of npc humans or any npc in fact claiming otherwise during the whole Prophecies campaign. It can be seen , taken together there is at least circumstantial evidence that it was Humans that formed the first legitimate claim to the land and held it up to and including the events of the “Eye of the North”.

Naturally, any human would. They had been their for 1000 years after all. But any actual definition that supports humanity will also support anyone else who was there before humanity. and we always knew that someone was. But based on the available evidence, it actually isn’t clear at all because we initially knew absolutely nothing of the land, pre-humanity.

let’s examine the evidence:

-humanity took that land from somebody

-They eventually started thinking of it as their homeland.

That’s it. That’s the evidence in it’s entirety. Where in there does it indicate that no one else could had it as their homeland before humanity took it?

terms like “legitimate claim” and “homeland” are good to create the appearance of validity. But without a definition, they mean very little. When those definitions are laid out, the double standard is readily apparent.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Nicholas S Lin.6187

Nicholas S Lin.6187

It’s clear from this objection and many others before it that your views are very anti-humanity, and clearly bias in favour of their enemies – in this case the Charr. You see a “double standard” when there is no evidence of it.

The definition of the legitimate and thus legal claim of a piece of Land as one’s Homeland is: The race of peoples after witnessing no actual or reasonable evidence of prior claim to the land, claiming it for it self and from that day forth actively use and develop the land as its owner, whilst being willing and able to hold said land via force of arms.

This definition can be applied to any other piece of land in Tyria. In the case of Ascalon prior to the events of the first game it was clear that it was humanity that held Ascalon as their Homeland – as per the definition stated.

(edited by Nicholas S Lin.6187)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

It’s clear from this objection and many others before it that your views are very anti-humanity, and clearly bias in favour of their enemies – in this case the Charr. You see a “double standard” when there is no evidence of it.

The definition of the legitimate and thus legal claim of a piece of Land as one’s Homeland is: The race of peoples after witnessing no actual or reasonable evidence of prior claim to the land, claiming it for it self and from that day forth actively use and develop the land as its owner, whilst being willing and able to hold said land via force of arms.

This definition can be applied to any other piece of land in Tyria. In the case of Ascalon prior to the events of the first game it was clear that it was humanity that held Ascalon as their Homeland – as per the definition stated.

We know humanity took it from someone else. As per your definition, humanities claim is invalidated due to the fact that someone else being on the land is a reasonable evidence of prior claim. But if we can justify it being okay for humanity then that same justification can be applied elsewhere.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

That’s really the problem – they were cardboard stand-ins for orcs/goblins/whatever. They had very little real . . . well, anything to them until Eye of the North. Which, notably, certain people like to lump together with Guild Wars 2 and not Guild Wars Trilogy (Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall).

So if you look at just the Trilogy at all? Not much there to work with as far as characterization goes.

Which, naturally, means it’s a crime to add any.

Of course, we can’t develop any of the other races. It has to be purely human according to some it seems :P.

It wasn’t a wrong assumption. If the Proph writers had meant for it to be some Charr homeland, they certainly would have mentioned it at least once in the whole campaign. There was never any indication, whether through the lore nor through direct quotes, of it having been some ancestral homeland of the Charr. You’d think, at any point in that long saga, you’d hear a Charr say something to the effect of “We’re taking our home back!” You don’t because they aren’t from there…well that and they couldn’t even speak the common tongue. It probably would have been a better story had the writer decided to do that, but they didn’t.

Definition of homeland? Just use my Rome example. Oh and Ascalon is Ascalons homeland, not humanities in general.

Charr didn’t think of humans (at that time) as ‘people’, just invaders. Likewise true for the humans toward the Charr.

You keep bouncing back to that as if it magically means GW2 (and EOTN, and other) lore is wrong, because totally they can’t have things which are unexplained/unanswered and then later they go back and fill in the gaps right?

Oh, you mean like they did for Proph and Factions in Nightfall! Charr were created as a villian race, and then later their lore and history actually delved into. IIRC, that’s EXPLICITLY stated somewhere. We never heard Charr talk in Proph, infact the first time we talked to one is in Nightfall. And he is in confusion/trying to find the titans (their gods at that time).

He also was friendly and saw no reason to fight with humans in the realm of torment, which is a viewpoint shared by some modern charr with the dragons. In face of greater threat, other hatred can be set aside. Infact from that guys dialogue I see no hatred of humanity.

Based on available evidence its clear that it was Humanity that lay claim to Ascalon as a homeland first. And thus built many cities on said land. The claim is widely accept by every human. From the modest farm-hand right up to and including the reigning monarch of the day right up to King Adelbern. In fact “For Ascalon” is a common greeting used by all Ascalonian humans towards any other human or friend.

At no time did the pc see any evidence that any significant group of npc humans or any npc in fact claiming otherwise during the whole Prophecies campaign. It can be seen , taken together there is at least circumstantial evidence that it was Humans that formed the first legitimate claim to the land and held it up to and including the events of the “Eye of the North”.

Humanity has been there 1170 years as of Pre searing. Of course, if Humans treated Charr as the settlers treated the native Americans, of course they wouldn’t see ‘signs of claiming the land’.

They’d just drive those ‘primitives’ out without a care of the other sides thoughts.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Nicholas S Lin.6187

Nicholas S Lin.6187

It’s clear from this objection and many others before it that your views are very anti-humanity, and clearly bias in favour of their enemies – in this case the Charr. You see a “double standard” when there is no evidence of it.

The definition of the legitimate and thus legal claim of a piece of Land as one’s Homeland is: The race of peoples after witnessing no actual or reasonable evidence of prior claim to the land, claiming it for it self and from that day forth actively use and develop the land as its owner, whilst being willing and able to hold said land via force of arms.

This definition can be applied to any other piece of land in Tyria. In the case of Ascalon prior to the events of the first game it was clear that it was humanity that held Ascalon as their Homeland – as per the definition stated.

We know humanity took it from someone else. As per your definition, humanities claim is invalidated due to the fact that someone else being on the land is a reasonable evidence of prior claim. But if we can justify it being okay for humanity then that same justification can be applied elsewhere.

Actual we know that they took the land from no prior race. Since before humanity no race has claimed the land as per my prescribed definition. All tests must be in evidenced.

A peoples that claim the land as their must show evidence that not only have they actively use the land they MUST pass the test of showing that they have “developed” the land. As well as all tests that form the definition!

The “development” test is proven by means of permanent structures consistent with on-going permanent settlement. There must also be signs of cultivation of the land for the production of food capable of feeding said settlement(s). Clearly there was no evidence of a peoples that pass this test to any reasonable level.

And as for being able to “willing and able to hold the land via force of arms”? There was no evidence that humanity face armed resistance when they claimed Ascalon. So this test was also not met.

Thus as already stated Humanity claim on Ascalon was legitimate and legal.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

Actual we know that they took the land from no prior race. Since before humanity no race has claimed the land as per my prescribed definition. All tests must be in evidenced.

A peoples that claim the land as their must show evidence that not only have they actively use the land they MUST pass the test of showing that they have “developed” the land. As well as all tests that form the definition!

The “development” test is proven by means of permanent structures consistent with on-going permanent settlement. There must also be signs of cultivation of the land for the production of food capable of feeding said settlement(s). Clearly there was no evidence of a peoples that pass this test to any reasonable level.

And as for being able to “willing and able to hold the land via force of arms”? There was no evidence that humanity face armed resistance when they claimed Ascalon. So this test was also not met.

Thus as already stated Humanity claim on Ascalon was legitimate and legal.

This new race of creatures was none other than us humans, and in no time we began to take over. Cities bloomed across the continent. Walls were erected, and weapons forged. Those things that we humans lacked, we simply built. We didn’t need tough hides nor rending claws when we could make metal armor and sharpened spears. We discovered fire, wrote books of our own, passed knowledge to one another through song and verse. Soon humans had everything we required, and it was then that we began to prey upon the other creatures. We hunted animals for sport, chased the druids from the jungle, and took up residence in lands that did not belong to us. We became the masters of this world. We took all of the privilege and none of the responsibility.

Actually, we EXPLICITLY know they have taken lands from other races. Charr and Centaurs to name two groups we know about. Centaurs were pushed from Kryta and Charr from Ascalon.

Also, your statements sound like the Native Americans (who IIRC, correct me if wrong) didn’t have permanent structures. So did they have no claim to the land then?

ALSO, there is no evidence of any sorts of how hard a time human did or did not have driving the Charr from Ascalon. We just have the founding date of the nation. So in response to your second to last statement, there is also no evidence the humans had a hard time pushing them north.

Just like the claim the settlers had on the land over the Native Americans was ‘legal’ or ‘legitimate’. They disregarded everybody else but themselves. I’m not painting Ascalon or humanity as villains, just they viewed the Charr as beasts, and it came back and literally bit them in the kitten .

edit: Actually, the quote line can explicitly be taken as they literally drove other races from their homelands (hence lands that did not belong to us).

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Sartharina.3542

Sartharina.3542

There’s a serious problem with dismissing pre-human Ascalon as “Not being Charr land” because the Charr hadn’t built any permanent settlements, given that it’s highly implied they lived a more tribal and nomadic life. It’s an offensively ethnocentric way of determining “rights” as well, because it says someone else’s lives, property, posterity, culture, and livelihood don’t matter unless they conform to a set of guidelines determined and demanded by an alien power.

It doesn’t matter if the Charr bothered to assign an arbitrary name to the land they hunted and lived on – it didn’t make their lives and clans meaningless. It doesn’t matter if they built houses or farms or other permanent structures – they still lived, died, and raised families on that land.

Humans believe that they are on a divine mission from their gods to populate, settle, and civilize the lands, regardless of the lives and cultures of those who lived on that lands. What they saw as boldly going where no man has gone before and forging a new life in hostile and untamed lands, the rest of Tyria saw as being on the receiving end of “War of the Worlds” (Which was written as a criticism of Imperialism)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Lord Trejgon.2809

Lord Trejgon.2809

IIRC ArenaNet clearly stated that before flame legion rule charrs was strictly nomadic tribes – so actually comparision with native americans seems be quite good – but only for nothern parts cause in suth america they are remnants of quite solid structures.

but also how would one define “homeland” for a tribe which just wanders from place to place?
tribes that were native to north america (not sure of the translation “indians” – in my native language we name them with word liek that) seemed to actually have developped which terrain belong to which tribe – and we cannot say if chars have such. Only thing that ArenaNet provided to us “for sure” is that they were nomadic tribes and they quite slaughtered whatever lived in lands that was later claimed by ascalonians. and that they were wandering in that region – but not only there – and now the question – so charrs homeland was everywhere that they’ve wandered in their long history or maybe place where they started? if that second that its clearly stated that they wandered to ascalon from the north

of course there nothing that could angry nomads more than big wall that don’t let them go were they used to go for years for f.e. hunting – so now we can see why they were atacking ascalonians making their kingdom actually be “constantly under siege”

about topic question – lets say that we would need to ask our characters and to be honest – both my guardian and ranger are descendants of elonian sunspears so actually – as ranger will support ebonhawke – cause his part of bloodline manage to get out of elona in time right through it and some generation lived there – as none of them would actually fight with chars to reclaim ascalon – of course they would do anything in political way to convince chars to not destroy madly everything that was left from beautifull ascalonian architecture and would try to reverse foefire to send all those spirits for well earned rest and then again through diplomacy not war try to convince them to let the human rebuild that beautifull – back in times city and f.e. make it city open for all races – just like lions arch used to be.

and honestly also I’m quite ok with charrs living there – of course I understand ascalonians feeling it being their homeland and would try to make some treaties wich charrs to let ascalonians live there in peace – but in case of ruling the land – they critically failed to defend ascalon city – so as cruel this can sound – they should deal with it and try to rebuild their kindgom around what they managed to keep – ebonhawke.

“-Shield is meant to be broken!”
“-and on this occasion I keep mine plate armors”
discussion about offensive/deffensive playstyles

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: bullyrook.2165

bullyrook.2165

Nobody is saying the searing was warranted or right. Infact, a large chunk of Charr think of it as bad.

Flame legion is, and was bad guys. That’s the BIGGEST problem I see here and ingame (even among friends). People universally hate the charr, but in reality they just hate the flame legion actions.

And yet Pyre Fierceshot was an advocate of the Searing and was proud that his father had a hand in it?

And Pyre Fierceshot is a chunk of the Charr population?
Perhaps not a LARGE chunk think of the searing badly, but a number do. There is one in Diessa who speaks about it. Zalvax Brokenclaw

“It was originally a military outpost. During the war, the Flame Legion—murderous villains—started attacking settlements. Many Ascalonian citizens fled to Oldgate, but in vain. "
“The Flame Legion hit the outpost like a hurricane. They didn’t just kill inhabitants, they busted down the walls and tore the place apart. I guess the ghosts here don’t realise we’re not the Flame Legion. "

Pyre was the founder of the revolt, who would hate the Flame Legion more than him? No, I get the sense that the Searing is a cultural point that most Charr gloss over. Like it is taboo to mention that the Flame Legion were the only reason that Ascalon fell.

If any Charr do mention it, they only do so to put some fear into “mice”, or else simply leave out that the Flame Legion were the driving force in it. Remember, the Charr are political creatures too. They are very likely to change their history simply to maintain their pride.

In the eyes of the average Charr, the list goes like this:
Your Legion
The other two legions
Other Races
Flame Legion
Humans

I will agree, there are some more worldly Charr that put humans in the same bracket as “other races”, but not many. Remember, it was only a few centuries ago that they were eating humans. We have no idea if this practice is still in place or how prevalent it is.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

That practice is completely gone. Anet explicitly said (at least about modern, playable charr) that they DO NOT EAT sentient beings. They’ll joke about it to scare people/see their faces, but they don’t actually do it.

Also, Pyre told the people to revolt against the Shamans, then left the rebellion to gain speed without him. He didn’t guide or truly influence other then showing others the shamans could be defeated.

The obviously don’t have humans at the lowest, as in the BC they treat humans just like any other race, and even the ones around Ebonhawke/the fort just north of fields of ruin can get along decently.

Flame legion is at the bottom.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Zaxares.5419

Zaxares.5419

Just adding my thoughts on a few things here:

- Pyre Fierceshot. I actually HATED him in GW1. He was the quintessential example of a ruthless, conniving villain who would backstab his allies as soon as he had no further use for them. He started the revolt against the Flame Legion, then immediately fled so he wouldn’t have to risk his own skin being a figurehead for the revolution. He freely admits to the GW1 hero that, were it not for the fact that his warband could not defeat the hero and his party (Heroes + henchies), he would never have entered into the alliance with them.

In terms of roleplay, my characters would have cooperated with him until Captain Langmar and the other Ebon Vanguard were freed, and the Flame Legion stronghold destroyed. Then I immediately challenge Pyre to a fight to the death. (Or let Gwen challenge him.)

In short, Pyre was just as reprehensible as the Flame Legion he was fighting. He’s not a good example of modern, tolerant Charr.

- Sympathetic Separatists. There are a few Separatists in Fields of Ruin that have dialogue or events that show not all of them are fanatics intent on slaughter. One event has you escorting a Separatist deserter back to his unit; he joined up because he wanted to “kill Charr”, but left after realising that the Separatists also count any humans who support the peace treaty among their enemies. Another Separatist up near Craze’s Folly has abandoned her fellows after discovering that they were stockpiling massive amounts of explosives and had plans to use them against the peace delegation. I think her words were “I signed up to fight, not for mass murder”.

It would only be logical to presume that many Separatists could, possibly, be talked down and persuaded to adopt a more peaceful method of objection. There are plenty of Separatist Sympathisers in Ebonhawke that you can do this to, for example. It’s just that we can’t do so in the game due to game limitations.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

IIRC, there is another Separatist who is in a relationship with somebody who was against the Separatists, and was trying to decide if being with the group was worth it vs the other person.

I don’t recall where it was though, maybe in Fields of Ruin.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Nicholas S Lin.6187

Nicholas S Lin.6187

Actual we know that they took the land from no prior race. Since before humanity no race has claimed the land as per my prescribed definition. All tests must be in evidenced.

A peoples that claim the land as their must show evidence that not only have they actively use the land they MUST pass the test of showing that they have “developed” the land. As well as all tests that form the definition!

The “development” test is proven by means of permanent structures consistent with on-going permanent settlement. There must also be signs of cultivation of the land for the production of food capable of feeding said settlement(s). Clearly there was no evidence of a peoples that pass this test to any reasonable level.

And as for being able to “willing and able to hold the land via force of arms”? There was no evidence that humanity face armed resistance when they claimed Ascalon. So this test was also not met.

Thus as already stated Humanity claim on Ascalon was legitimate and legal.

This new race of creatures was none other than us humans, and in no time we began to take over. Cities bloomed across the continent. Walls were erected, and weapons forged. Those things that we humans lacked, we simply built. We didn’t need tough hides nor rending claws when we could make metal armor and sharpened spears. We discovered fire, wrote books of our own, passed knowledge to one another through song and verse. Soon humans had everything we required, and it was then that we began to prey upon the other creatures. We hunted animals for sport, chased the druids from the jungle, and took up residence in lands that did not belong to us. We became the masters of this world. We took all of the privilege and none of the responsibility.

Actually, we EXPLICITLY know they have taken lands from other races. Charr and Centaurs to name two groups we know about. Centaurs were pushed from Kryta and Charr from Ascalon.

Also, your statements sound like the Native Americans (who IIRC, correct me if wrong) didn’t have permanent structures. So did they have no claim to the land then?

ALSO, there is no evidence of any sorts of how hard a time human did or did not have driving the Charr from Ascalon. We just have the founding date of the nation. So in response to your second to last statement, there is also no evidence the humans had a hard time pushing them north.

Just like the claim the settlers had on the land over the Native Americans was ‘legal’ or ‘legitimate’. They disregarded everybody else but themselves. I’m not painting Ascalon or humanity as villains, just they viewed the Charr as beasts, and it came back and literally bit them in the kitten .

edit: Actually, the quote line can explicitly be taken as they literally drove other races from their homelands (hence lands that did not belong to us).

This accusation that Humans were an Imperialist race of peoples that took lands from others is at best a misrepresentation of history and in reality is completely without basis in truth. Since this very accusation can be levelled at any successful race!

The Dwarves did it to the Dredge. The Charr themselves pushed other races out of lands themselves but since they are not human no record or details are given. But we do know that they are an aggressive, successful and adaptive race of sentient beings.

So to exclusively claim that only Humanity can be legitimately be accused of being historical “Imperialist” is obviously a view that is biased in the extreme!

One could take the view that the text you quoted was written by a Charr sympathiser and or a disgruntled being living in the margins of society and is deeply bitter towards it as a result.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

I’m not saying only humans did it.

I’m saying we have explicit statements(later proven true) from a HUMAN VIEWPOINT NO LESS that they did it.

Yes, the author does wish for a more peaceful future, but being in the manuscripts/manual and being the history of Tyria, I doubt this is some “vague author living on the outskirts of society”.

(edited by Kalavier.1097)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Actual we know that they took the land from no prior race. Since before humanity no race has claimed the land as per my prescribed definition. All tests must be in evidenced.

A peoples that claim the land as their must show evidence that not only have they actively use the land they MUST pass the test of showing that they have “developed” the land. As well as all tests that form the definition!

The “development” test is proven by means of permanent structures consistent with on-going permanent settlement. There must also be signs of cultivation of the land for the production of food capable of feeding said settlement(s). Clearly there was no evidence of a peoples that pass this test to any reasonable level.

And as for being able to “willing and able to hold the land via force of arms”? There was no evidence that humanity face armed resistance when they claimed Ascalon. So this test was also not met.

Thus as already stated Humanity claim on Ascalon was legitimate and legal.

Ergo, in your opinion the vast majority of Native Americans have no actual ancestral homeland.

Clearly, you took a legal definition on a claim of land in todays society and are trying to shoehorn this into the definition of what a “Homeland” is. But it doesn’t actually give us a definition of homeland. The fact that no one is willing to provide this definition of homeland is very telling.

edit: as far as armed resistance:

“Driven back in the first war against the humans, the Charr were forced to surrender the lands that would become Ascalon.” http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Ecology_of_the_Charr

So to exclusively claim that only Humanity can be legitimately be accused of being historical “Imperialist” is obviously a view that is biased in the extreme!

No one made this claim. In fact, the charr are great imperialists to the point of “subjugating or destroyed any and all who dared defy them”. They have both done it. Point being, the same standard applies to both charr and humanity. (which is a more balanced point and pretty unbias.)

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Yes, the author does wish for a more peaceful future, but being in the manuscripts/manual and being the history of Tyria, I doubt this is some “vague author living on the outskirts of society”.

Not only this but the idea that the author of the manuscripts that set the tone for the entire first game, would be a charr sympathizer has all kinds of implications in charr favor.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Sartharina.3542

Sartharina.3542

Simple definition of homeland – the land where someone (A person, family, clan, or even race) was born, raised, and prospered on.

The humans, Norn, and Asura are all extremely imperialist. The Humans are Imperialist with their God-given mandate to civilize and spread their version of order and governance to the land. The Charr are imperialist in their desire to conquer the land for the glory of the Legions (Now that they’ve developed their militant culture as a reaction to overcome human imperialism and later Flame Legion theocracy), and the Asura see themselves as the only ones with the brains to conquer and rule the above-ground world as they had the subterrain before.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

This topic is a great showcase of double standards/hypocrisy.

It’s fine for humans to scream in rage over lost nations and/or homelands, and try to retake them.

However, it is NOT fine for other races (Centaurs, Charr, etc) to have the exact same feelings and try to (and/or successfully) take back their lands.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Simple definition of homeland – the land where someone (A person, family, clan, or even race) was born, raised, and prospered on.

The humans, Norn, and Asura are all extremely imperialist. The Humans are Imperialist with their God-given mandate to civilize and spread their version of order and governance to the land. The Charr are imperialist in their desire to conquer the land for the glory of the Legions (Now that they’ve developed their militant culture as a reaction to overcome human imperialism and later Flame Legion theocracy), and the Asura see themselves as the only ones with the brains to conquer and rule the above-ground world as they had the subterrain before.

Exactlly. Thank you for that. The definition of homeland applies across the board. it’s not some magical word that only applies when humanity invokes it.

Small note though: The charr actually developed their militant culture before they met humanity.

“The Charr were once a primitive people, filled with rage and a primal drive to dominate and control. They fought everything that threatened them – even one another – only surviving this brutal period by evolving into a strict hierarchical society. Disparate, fierce, and independent warbands unified under a single leader, the Khan-Ur, for the good of the race, and a golden age of Charr dominance began.”
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Ecology_of_the_Charr

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Sartharina.3542

Sartharina.3542

Also… I keep seeing Obsidian saying that it’s wrong for Guild Wars 2 to have a different core narrative than the first game, which I think is absolute nonsense. It’s perfectly acceptable for a creative work to have one installment of the series present one core narrative (Actually, in the case of a game, core experience. Games are not books. Games are not Movies), then have a future work in the same series provide a deconstruction, reconstruction, or even simply different take on the themes and core experiences of an original work. Guild Wars 2 is a standalone product, not beholden to the first game except in that it shares a world and timeline. It hasn’t retconned anything, but instead fleshed out and emphasized past events to change the narrative, much as real-world history classes change the emphasis on events that happened to paint an overarching, thematic narrative to give direction to human progress/regress. (I just had to sit through a class of American History studying the rise of the nation in the context of spreading, defining or restricting freedom)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: bullyrook.2165

bullyrook.2165

This topic is a great showcase of double standards/hypocrisy.

It’s fine for humans to scream in rage over lost nations and/or homelands, and try to retake them.

However, it is NOT fine for other races (Centaurs, Charr, etc) to have the exact same feelings and try to (and/or successfully) take back their lands.

Ascalon had been humanity’s for some time. Not a Charr was left alive that could claim Ascalon to be their home, nor a human present that actually drove the Charr out.

The Charr invaded a human homeland to claim it as their own. Why? Because it was the homeland of their forefathers. Not the homeland of the Charr at that point in history, but the homelands of their forefathers. It is important to note that.

The Humans of the GW1 Ascalon had the only claim on that land because it was their homeland. Many generations had been born and died there, by definition, that makes it their homeland.

Now it is the Charr homeland again. During the reign of Humanity in Ascalon it was a Human homeland – it ceased to be the Charr homeland when every Charr that had been born there died.

Now that every Human that was born within the GW1 territories of Ascalon is dead, it is no longer the Human homeland. The Ascalonian territory known as the Fields of Ruin is a new Human homeland. Children born there have the only claim to the land – this is natural law.

In other words:

The Humans started a war that the Charr lost – generations of Humans were born in that land and never even saw a Charr to war with, Ascalon became a Human homeland.

The Charr started a war that the Humans lost – generations of Charr were born in that land and never even saw a Human to war with, Ascalon became a Charr homeland once more.

I know I am being redundant, but I am trying to get the point across by simplifying the matter.

Thanks to the treaty and the Dragons its over until a Charr or a Human gets too big for his britches. Period.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Simple definition of homeland – the land where someone (A person, family, clan, or even race) was born, raised, and prospered on.

The humans, Norn, and Asura are all extremely imperialist. The Humans are Imperialist with their God-given mandate to civilize and spread their version of order and governance to the land. The Charr are imperialist in their desire to conquer the land for the glory of the Legions (Now that they’ve developed their militant culture as a reaction to overcome human imperialism and later Flame Legion theocracy), and the Asura see themselves as the only ones with the brains to conquer and rule the above-ground world as they had the subterrain before.

This is where we disagree. A homeland isn’t simply where you grew up, it’s where your culture is rooted. For instance, technically speaking, my own homeland isn’t America, but rather Ireland. It’s where I owe most of my cultural heritage and where my ancestors and people came from. That’s why you have the terms German-American, or Japanese-American, etc. I’d still take up arms to defend and die for America, I owe it my life and rights. But I’d also do the same for Ireland if need be, and yet more passionately so. Some would say that’s backwards thinking, and they’d even have a point. I mean, that calls to question all sorts of loyalty issues. But it is what it is.

GW1 Tyria was written in that same line of thinking: i.e. various distinct nations all vying for survival and control and dominance in a world rife with internal warfare. It’s supposed to be uncivilized in that regard. It’s supposed to be a world where all of those nationalistic ideas are commonplace. Turning it into some utopian community where we all hold hands now for the common good is outside the realm of its existence.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

Yeah, that thinking was before giant dragons appeared that made all those petty issues suddenly look like a bad idea to hold onto blindly.

See Charr willing to set aside hatred of Ebonhawke humans because they CLEARLY see how big a threat the dragons are with the brand.

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Also… I keep seeing Obsidian saying that it’s wrong for Guild Wars 2 to have a different core narrative than the first game, which I think is absolute nonsense. It’s perfectly acceptable for a creative work to have one installment of the series present one core narrative (Actually, in the case of a game, core experience. Games are not books. Games are not Movies), then have a future work in the same series provide a deconstruction, reconstruction, or even simply different take on the themes and core experiences of an original work. Guild Wars 2 is a standalone product, not beholden to the first game except in that it shares a world and timeline. It hasn’t retconned anything, but instead fleshed out and emphasized past events to change the narrative, much as real-world history classes change the emphasis on events that happened to paint an overarching, thematic narrative to give direction to human progress/regress. (I just had to sit through a class of American History studying the rise of the nation in the context of spreading, defining or restricting freedom)

No. Absolutely no. It is just like a movie or book. Just because the story is used for a game doesn’t mean it doesn’t adhere to the implications those forms of art entail. The story would exist(albeit in relative obscurity) with or without the actual game being around. And it isn’t like some modern history class where we can discover different points of view on things based on new evidence. It isn’t like that because 1) it’s not real, it’s made up, and 2) there is only one point of view for it: the author’s point of view. Taking parts of it and changing them to suit your needs is the equivalent of taking a Beatles song, changing some of the words and making it a country song, and then having the gall to say this is a legit extension of their work. It’s not just wrong, it’s insulting.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

This topic is a great showcase of double standards/hypocrisy.

It’s fine for humans to scream in rage over lost nations and/or homelands, and try to retake them.

However, it is NOT fine for other races (Centaurs, Charr, etc) to have the exact same feelings and try to (and/or successfully) take back their lands.

I never said that, it’s perfectly fine for other races to fight over their homeland. Ascalon was never Charr homeland though. And we have no idea if the Centaurs called Kryta proper theirs.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Kalavier.1097

Kalavier.1097

The only problem with what you say is that fact our knowledge of Tyria history comes from an in-universe human’s viewpoint, NOT the viewpoint of the author or from an out of the game standing.

So there is obviously going to be blank parts and unfilled perspectives, there is ALWAYS that when you do in universe viewpoints.

edit: It’s like Lord of the rings. We read about Gandalf dying at Moria, but later we are shown that he actually survived (in a way) and came back. This is simply a perspective shift.

This topic is a great showcase of double standards/hypocrisy.

It’s fine for humans to scream in rage over lost nations and/or homelands, and try to retake them.

However, it is NOT fine for other races (Centaurs, Charr, etc) to have the exact same feelings and try to (and/or successfully) take back their lands.

I never said that, it’s perfectly fine for other races to fight over their homeland. Ascalon was never Charr homeland though. And we have no idea if the Centaurs called Kryta proper theirs.

Says who? We have nothing in GW1 that says with word of god authority that the region is not charr ancestral homeland.

(edited by Kalavier.1097)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Yeah, that thinking was before giant dragons appeared that made all those petty issues suddenly look like a bad idea to hold onto blindly.

See Charr willing to set aside hatred of Ebonhawke humans because they CLEARLY see how big a threat the dragons are with the brand.

…which is exactly why they brought the ED’s on board. Can you not see that?

In other words, it wasn’t the ED’s that caused the races to unite. But rather it was the wishes of the new devs to do so because of a new marketing approach, and the ED’s were the mechanic through which they accomplished that.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

The only problem with what you say is that fact our knowledge of Tyria history comes from an in-universe human’s viewpoint, NOT the viewpoint of the author or from an out of the game standing.

So there is obviously going to be blank parts and unfilled perspectives, there is ALWAYS that when you do in universe viewpoints.

edit: It’s like Lord of the rings. We read about Gandalf dying at Moria, but later we are shown that he actually survived (in a way) and came back. This is simply a perspective shift.

This topic is a great showcase of double standards/hypocrisy.

It’s fine for humans to scream in rage over lost nations and/or homelands, and try to retake them.

However, it is NOT fine for other races (Centaurs, Charr, etc) to have the exact same feelings and try to (and/or successfully) take back their lands.

I never said that, it’s perfectly fine for other races to fight over their homeland. Ascalon was never Charr homeland though. And we have no idea if the Centaurs called Kryta proper theirs.

Says who? We have nothing in GW1 that says with word of god authority that the region is not charr ancestral homeland.

I see. So because it’s not explicitly mentioned it cannot be? Got it.

Learn to read between the lines and see the narrative for what the author is trying to convey, and not simply write down facts on a sheet like it’s a history class.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care