Guild Wars 2

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier.1097:

What I hate is how people seem to avoid the idea that the leadership change means a lot.

I mean, does everybody think Germany is all evil now? No. They got new leadership and direction. The Charr overthrew their old leadership, and started a new path. Why people continue to hold ALL CHARR EVERYWHERE TODAY accountable for actions made by/ordered by FLAME LEGION LEADERSHIP is what confuses me.

Well what I hate is when GW2 players think that the whole “the Flame Legion did it” mantra even existed in Prophecies. There was zero indication of this. In fact, the Flame Legion itself wasn’t even written into the narrative until Eye of the North.

And as EotN is first and foremost a prequel to GW2, as ANet has stated, it shouldn’t be a surprise that there is a little disconnect there.

And I hate how some people seem to think that we should take the development of Charr from Prophecies (Note, THERE IS NONE. There is no charr development besides they worship fire effigies) as hardcore evidence of All charr were utterly willing in all actions.

In Nightfall you come across one who, IIRC, hates his fellows.

In EOTN, they left “Generic monster enemy race number 13” and entered “Actually developed race.”

I’m not saying Flame Legion did everything (And I’ve played all of GW1), I’m saying lore provided outside of the pro human centered viewpoint of GW1, has shown that Flame Legion held the lead for a long time, during and before GW1 even.

Obsidian.1328:

ANet was trying to change its target audience to a younger demographic by changing the mood of the writing.

It isn’t the first time someone said that. I cannot really wrap my head around that statement. I mean the statement implies that before EOTN the game was targeting an older demographic, right?

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Enadiz_the_Hardheaded

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Drakes_on_the_Plain

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Banana_Scythe.jpg

wat.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Herta —-> hilarious (seriously!)

If anything (and I wouldn’t say GW1 was for an older audience ever), the shift to a less serious tone started with Nightfall and from then on it balanced funny and tragic pretty well for the most part, at least for me.
In my opinion the most mature storyline was Winds of Change. Which was the last story released.

Kalavier.1097:

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier.1097:

What I hate is how people seem to avoid the idea that the leadership change means a lot.

I mean, does everybody think Germany is all evil now? No. They got new leadership and direction. The Charr overthrew their old leadership, and started a new path. Why people continue to hold ALL CHARR EVERYWHERE TODAY accountable for actions made by/ordered by FLAME LEGION LEADERSHIP is what confuses me.

Well what I hate is when GW2 players think that the whole “the Flame Legion did it” mantra even existed in Prophecies. There was zero indication of this. In fact, the Flame Legion itself wasn’t even written into the narrative until Eye of the North.

And as EotN is first and foremost a prequel to GW2, as ANet has stated, it shouldn’t be a surprise that there is a little disconnect there.

And I hate how some people seem to think that we should take the development of Charr from Prophecies (Note, THERE IS NONE. There is no charr development besides they worship fire effigies) as hardcore evidence of All charr were utterly willing in all actions.

In Nightfall you come across one who, IIRC, hates his fellows.

In EOTN, they left “Generic monster enemy race number 13” and entered “Actually developed race.”

I’m not saying Flame Legion did everything (And I’ve played all of GW1), I’m saying lore provided outside of the pro human centered viewpoint of GW1, has shown that Flame Legion held the lead for a long time, during and before GW1 even.

I guess the question is: Were the Charr better as mindless evil beasts?

Derom.1205:

Kalavier.1097:

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier.1097:

What I hate is how people seem to avoid the idea that the leadership change means a lot.

I mean, does everybody think Germany is all evil now? No. They got new leadership and direction. The Charr overthrew their old leadership, and started a new path. Why people continue to hold ALL CHARR EVERYWHERE TODAY accountable for actions made by/ordered by FLAME LEGION LEADERSHIP is what confuses me.

Well what I hate is when GW2 players think that the whole “the Flame Legion did it” mantra even existed in Prophecies. There was zero indication of this. In fact, the Flame Legion itself wasn’t even written into the narrative until Eye of the North.

And as EotN is first and foremost a prequel to GW2, as ANet has stated, it shouldn’t be a surprise that there is a little disconnect there.

And I hate how some people seem to think that we should take the development of Charr from Prophecies (Note, THERE IS NONE. There is no charr development besides they worship fire effigies) as hardcore evidence of All charr were utterly willing in all actions.

In Nightfall you come across one who, IIRC, hates his fellows.

In EOTN, they left “Generic monster enemy race number 13” and entered “Actually developed race.”

I’m not saying Flame Legion did everything (And I’ve played all of GW1), I’m saying lore provided outside of the pro human centered viewpoint of GW1, has shown that Flame Legion held the lead for a long time, during and before GW1 even.

I guess the question is: Were the Charr better as mindless evil beasts?

This is why the ascalon debate is so annoying, people keep arguing as if it doesn’t make sense by lore, when they mean they dislike the writing. And people who dislike the lore in Gw2 because it was presented in a way that conflicting with the mood of Gw1 annoy me to no end.

Honestly if you are going to complain about the writing this is the wrong subforum for you. I could make endless posts on why sylvari should not be dragon minions but what is done is done.

Derom.1205:

Yeah, Gwen was whiny.
But I just don’t see any obsession humanity has with her. I mean yeah sure, Ascalonians see her as a hero. But Canthans, Elonians or even Krytans? They probably don’t even know her. Most of the stuff you can find about her is in Ebonhawk which she helped to found, but apart from that I didn’t seem to find much. You can see Salma und Rurik pretty often because of Divinities Reach’s quarters.
So for the Charr a flame shaman can be a hero and for the humans the founding mother of Ebonhawk was called the Goremonger. Maybe its just a way to say that nothing was as black and white as some people in Tyria think about that time.

Well a lot of humans that talk history, are from Ascalonian heritage, as she get’s mentioned quite often. Compare how little other important characters like Turai Ossa or Master Togo are mentioned. I mean Ossa, like Rurik and Salma has a district named after him, but that’s it (the encounter in the Priory does not count obviously). For Master Togo, I can’t think of a single reference to him, aside from one or two name drops in books that sit around in the Priory.
Granted obsession is maybe a strong word, but Gwen still get’s more credit than she deserves. Again though, the problem I have with that is foremost that she get’s more credit than the PC from GW1. That makes her my White Whale.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Derom.1205:

Yeah, Gwen was whiny.
But I just don’t see any obsession humanity has with her. I mean yeah sure, Ascalonians see her as a hero. But Canthans, Elonians or even Krytans? They probably don’t even know her. Most of the stuff you can find about her is in Ebonhawk which she helped to found, but apart from that I didn’t seem to find much. You can see Salma und Rurik pretty often because of Divinities Reach’s quarters.
So for the Charr a flame shaman can be a hero and for the humans the founding mother of Ebonhawk was called the Goremonger. Maybe its just a way to say that nothing was as black and white as some people in Tyria think about that time.

Well a lot of humans that talk history, are from Ascalonian heritage, as she get’s mentioned quite often. Compare how little other important characters like Turai Ossa or Master Togo are mentioned. I mean Ossa, like Rurik and Salma has a district named after him, but that’s it (the encounter in the Priory does not count obviously). For Master Togo, I can’t think of a single reference to him, aside from one or two name drops in books that sit around in the Priory.
Granted obsession is maybe a strong word, but Gwen still get’s more credit than she deserves. Again though, the problem I have with that is foremost that she get’s more credit than the PC from GW1. That makes her my White Whale.

Most Ascalonians come from Ebonhawk now. This was quiet some time after the actions of the GW1 hero. S/he never played a (direct) role in the founding of Ebonhawk. Gwen and Keiran did.
Also a funny little thing. Have you played Winds of Change? They kinda gave the GW1 hero a canon personality. Seems like s/he was a humble and friendly person who didn’t even saw him/herself as a hero. Maybe s/he just didn’t want to be remembered by history?

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Ministry_of_Oppression#Intermediate_dialogue

“Everyone thinks their cause is just.”

Kalavier.1097:

I’m not saying Flame Legion did everything (And I’ve played all of GW1), I’m saying lore provided outside of the pro human centered viewpoint of GW1, has shown that Flame Legion held the lead for a long time, during and before GW1 even.

GW1 is pro human centered? Is Star Wars pro human centered? Is The Hobbit pro halfling centered??

It’s rather easy to claim an author’s entire narrative is in-verse biased when not explicitly stated I suppose. So much for narrative voice…

But why stop there? Factions is Canthan biased, or even Luxon or Kurzick biased depending on your point of view! Since I chose Luxon, all those filthy Kurzicks are so obviously villains they should all die! What’s that? The Kurzick point of view is different than mine and equally valid?? I can’t believe ANet tricked me! Oh the humanity!!

Derom.1205:

Obsidian.1328:

ANet was trying to change its target audience to a younger demographic by changing the mood of the writing.

It isn’t the first time someone said that. I cannot really wrap my head around that statement. I mean the statement implies that before EOTN the game was targeting an older demographic, right?

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Enadiz_the_Hardheaded

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Drakes_on_the_Plain

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Banana_Scythe.jpg

wat.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Herta —-> hilarious (seriously!)

If anything (and I wouldn’t say GW1 was for an older audience ever), the shift to a less serious tone started with Nightfall and from then on it balanced funny and tragic pretty well for the most part, at least for me.
In my opinion the most mature storyline was Winds of Change. Which was the last story released.

Oh you missed a good one!: Oink

Given that a lot of the popular references in GW1 were from the 90’s or even 80’s, I’d say that GW2’s target audience was Gen X-ers and their kids. Someone should have told them X-ers and millennials are very different. :-/

Interesting how your references there are from Nightfall. That’s exactly when the new writers took over.

Obsidian.1328:

Well what I hate is when GW2 players think that the whole “the Flame Legion did it” mantra even existed in Prophecies. There was zero indication of this. In fact, the Flame Legion itself wasn’t even written into the narrative until Eye of the North.

Well, lets see. Fire cult, magic users as privileged caste, no females in sight… Yeah, it surely looks like Iron legion did it!

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier.1097:

I’m not saying Flame Legion did everything (And I’ve played all of GW1), I’m saying lore provided outside of the pro human centered viewpoint of GW1, has shown that Flame Legion held the lead for a long time, during and before GW1 even.

GW1 is pro human centered? Is Star Wars pro human centered? Is The Hobbit pro halfling centered??

It’s rather easy to claim an author’s entire narrative is in-verse biased when not explicitly stated I suppose. So much for narrative voice…

But why stop there? Factions is Canthan biased, or even Luxon or Kurzick biased depending on your point of view! Since I chose Luxon, all those filthy Kurzicks are so obviously villains they should all die! What’s that? The Kurzick point of view is different than mine and equally valid?? I can’t believe ANet tricked me! Oh the humanity!!

Well gw1 is very lacking in a feminine perspective. Show me any of the female charr in gw1 prophecies. Show me any female human in star wars 4-6 that wasn’t Leia or that one chick.

Is the Hobbit pro halfling centered…….. No kitten sherlock. Bilbo Baggins wrote the narrative and anything in it is from his perspective. You being an actual librarian seems a dubious claim now. This is not a mistake many librarians would make.

You can make your claims if and only if the voice in prophecies was omniscient. When I spoke to Gwen in the campaign did I also get to hear what was she was thinking?

Daniel Handler.4816:

Honestly if you are going to complain about the writing this is the wrong subforum for you.

lol, isn’t this the subforum for the game’s writing and background as opposed to mechanics?

A discussion interesting enough to get me out of Forum retirement. Too bad it has deteriorated to the level where people start to take things personal.

About claims that GW is human-centered in contrast to GW2, there were no other playable species, therefore no alternatives around which the game could center. The Charr are simply evil monsters in Prophecies, and i wonder if some people really expect the game to center around anything else but the “good” guys, which in Prophecies is human heroes.
At least till Eye of the North which equally centers around humans, Asura, Norn and dwarves despite most of them not being playable.

And the Charr are clearly nothing but monsters in Guild Wars till the first appearance of Charr who could talk in NF, which was written by different people. But even in GWEN is the majority of Charr antagonistic and those who ally with you, Pyre’s warband, welcome the actions of the Charr against humanity, like the Searing.

In GW2 we got the so-called “subjective truths” and it seems to me like the writers try to turn the subjective view of the Charr into a general objective truth. The Charr of GW2 bear responsibility for their ancestors actions because they embrace them themselves. They waged war against humanity till recently, and worship some of the worst Flame-Legion monsters as heroes.

If a nation continues a war after a change of government, one they see as “just” even under the new government, then they take responsibility for the old governments actions. To claim otherwise (“the Flame Legion did it”) is hypocrisy. The Charr of today have to bear with the legal and moral heritage left by their ancestors, that of the worst atrocities in Tyrian history. That they do not care shows that they haven’t changed.

We also see no atrocities committed against the Charr by humanity. Some people use the Charr-hide armor as proof, but neither does that counter all the evil deeds of the Charr, nor was it anything noteworthy in Prophecies. Primeval armor uses the bones of demons, does anybody complain about that? How do players get Centaur hooves as trophies in GW2? They cut them off. Charr-hide armor does not “equal” the countless atrocities committed by the Charr. You get Charr hide as a drop if you want it or not.

The only hint of atrocities is in Ghosts of Ascalon when Ember is supposed to get flayed alive. By an Asura by the way. And GoA is GW2 material.

Finally, the last Titan worshipped by the Charr as a god falls in 1078, killed by human heroes just like all the other Titans on the face of Tyria:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Smell_of_Titan_in_the_Morning

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Similarly Ascalon is better off under Charr rule (Ebonhawke notwithstanding) than being torn to shreds by constant war.

Is it really, though? The Charr seem to be on a one-way train to ecological disaster. I mean, their junk yards spontaneously generate toxic oozes, they have to tear up huge regions of forest to fuel their furnaces, they have to tear up huge chunks of earth for the iron of their fortresses, and I seem to recall there being a Charr in the Black Citadel’s smelter district asking the player if they’ve experienced any sorts of disease symptoms after contact with the smelter. Plus they only eat meat (with a fondness for beef specifically) and almost everything they build is constantly belching black smoke into the sky in massive quantities.

The Charr of GW2 bear responsibility for their ancestors actions because they embrace them themselves.

I don’t know if I would go so far as to say bear responsibility, but as a person who never played GW1 and knew little about it, the fact that the Charr build on ruins and happily talk about how they leave ruins in place/around them to gloat, basically, was one of the most unlikeable things about them. And even knowing almost nothing about the first game, very little of what Charr characters say about the war sounds true (and noteably, most of what humans say does). I’ve met a few Charr NPCs who were awesome but overall I am always surprised how unlikeable most Charr and their culture are written. I imagine other people are getting something different out of it but doing a group close-reading-of-the-text over messageboard sounds challenging :P

That said, if I could donate gold to get Kirt a scholarship to the Priory of something I would be so happy.

Derom.1205:

If anything (and I wouldn’t say GW1 was for an older audience ever), the shift to a less serious tone started with Nightfall

You might’ve forgotten that there was a Sorrow’s Furnace path that was just one extremely drawn out Leeroy Jenkins joke.

Or the fact that “For Great Justice!” Was a base game skill.

Pyro.4765:

Is it really, though? The Charr seem to be on a one-way train to ecological disaster. I mean, their junk yards spontaneously generate toxic oozes, they have to tear up huge regions of forest to fuel their furnaces, they have to tear up huge chunks of earth for the iron of their fortresses, and I seem to recall there being a Charr in the Black Citadel’s smelter district asking the player if they’ve experienced any sorts of disease symptoms after contact with the smelter. Plus they only eat meat (with a fondness for beef specifically) and almost everything they build is constantly belching black smoke into the sky in massive quantities.

That’s bad, but it’s not searing crystals annihilating the landscape bad. Compare how Ascalon looks now and how it looked in GW1. And the Charr aren’t stupid, even they know they can’t treat their environment like that forever, it’s just that right now they need this industrial complex to battle the threats surrounding them.

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier.1097:

I’m not saying Flame Legion did everything (And I’ve played all of GW1), I’m saying lore provided outside of the pro human centered viewpoint of GW1, has shown that Flame Legion held the lead for a long time, during and before GW1 even.

GW1 is pro human centered? Is Star Wars pro human centered? Is The Hobbit pro halfling centered??

It’s rather easy to claim an author’s entire narrative is in-verse biased when not explicitly stated I suppose. So much for narrative voice…

So wait, you are saying we are allowed to accept other viewpoints in the case of Kurzicks, Luxons, and Canthans, but we can’t accept the idea that maybe the charr story is different then the human one?

GW1 was from the point of view of humans. We saw nothing of the Charr but as beasts. Then Anet came in, and actually provided some of the CHARR STORY that we didn’t and wouldn’t see in prophecies because of the point of view! But heaven forbid that!

Pyro.4765:

Is it really, though? The Charr seem to be on a one-way train to ecological disaster. I mean, their junk yards spontaneously generate toxic oozes, they have to tear up huge regions of forest to fuel their furnaces, they have to tear up huge chunks of earth for the iron of their fortresses, and I seem to recall there being a Charr in the Black Citadel’s smelter district asking the player if they’ve experienced any sorts of disease symptoms after contact with the smelter. Plus they only eat meat (with a fondness for beef specifically) and almost everything they build is constantly belching black smoke into the sky in massive quantities.

Really? I mean, that’s completely ignoring the fact iron legion have high tech devices built SPECIFICALLY to clean up the lakes and maintain them often against flame legion sabotage. The fact the land actually is much healthy now then it was 250 years ago, and you can CLEARLY see the different between Iron legion ruled lands and flame-legion held lands.

Sure, they got some really big mines, but look at Ebonhawke’s quarry. It’s pretty darn big as well.

The Charr are using lots of resources, but they aren’t using them blindly or without care (Compare to say, the klingons who blindly used up resources until their MOON exploded and almost doomed their homeworld).

noraia.8570:

I don’t know if I would go so far as to say bear responsibility, but as a person who never played GW1 and knew little about it, the fact that the Charr build on ruins and happily talk about how they leave ruins in place/around them to gloat, basically, was one of the most unlikeable things about them. And even knowing almost nothing about the first game, very little of what Charr characters say about the war sounds true (and noteably, most of what humans say does).
That said, if I could donate gold to get Kirt a scholarship to the Priory of something I would be so happy.

Most Charr tear down ruins to try to STOP the Ascalon ghosts from continuing to form. They build around them because ruins are almost all over Ascalon. YES, some are kittening kittens about it. Honestly, the one monument in BC is the most colored viewpoint, but elsewhere the reactions seem less pronounced. I mean, I certainly got NO hero worship feelings for the flame legion leaders of that day OUTSIDE OF THAT ONE MONUMENT. Which you have Charr scholars actually going “Um, that’s a biased viewpoint. We are here to find out the truth.”

About the charr and the war… The Flame Legion was in power when Adelbern caused the foefire. After that it was purely Ebonhawke vs the legions. ALSO the fact the Iron legion was prepping TO END THE WAR. Then the humans KEPT IT GOING.

Iron Legion collected a lot of Ascalonian artifacts, loaded them on a boat and sent it to Kryta. Pirates sunk the ship/stole the artifacts. A charr comments how the Iron Legion was preparing for peace, then the one Krytan Prince arrived at Ebonhawke to play soldier and caused the fields to run with charr and human blood. Now the cease fire formed because of the rising dragon threat, and we have a decent Krytan ruler around. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Prince_Edair

Also, I’d say the foefire is a direct atrocity commited toward the Charr. and humanity both. It killed every charr on that battlefield, and the ghosts continue to try to slaughter charr and anything else. Caused by Adelbern, who refused to change his ways and that literally cost him everything.

Obsidian.1328:

Derom.1205:

Obsidian.1328:

ANet was trying to change its target audience to a younger demographic by changing the mood of the writing.

It isn’t the first time someone said that. I cannot really wrap my head around that statement. I mean the statement implies that before EOTN the game was targeting an older demographic, right?

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Enadiz_the_Hardheaded

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Drakes_on_the_Plain

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Banana_Scythe.jpg

wat.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Herta —-> hilarious (seriously!)

If anything (and I wouldn’t say GW1 was for an older audience ever), the shift to a less serious tone started with Nightfall and from then on it balanced funny and tragic pretty well for the most part, at least for me.
In my opinion the most mature storyline was Winds of Change. Which was the last story released.

Oh you missed a good one!: Oink

Given that a lot of the popular references in GW1 were from the 90’s or even 80’s, I’d say that GW2’s target audience was Gen X-ers and their kids. Someone should have told them X-ers and millennials are very different. :-/

Interesting how your references there are from Nightfall. That’s exactly when the new writers took over.

Like i said, there was a shift in style beginning with Nightfall. I just like it.
For me, Prophecies was just standart fantasy and Factions was just one long Hong Kong movie (which i liked, though). But i really like how Nightfall started to incorporate humor without losing the serious parts. The Realm of Torment was just kittened up.
Maybe it’s because the jokes start to reference more modern things, so it feels like it’s for a younger audience. Or that i personally grew up with Final Fantasy so I was never really used to the normal western fantasy setting. I am 24 so maybe thats the reason.
It is just hard to argue for me that Nightfall or EOTN was for kids or something.

I think the kicker for me regarding the Charr was them holding Gwen as a slave. The adorable little girl who you give a flute to was presumed dead after the Searing and that was absolutely heartbreaking.

The Charr NPCs don’t really do anything to endear themselves to me either. They brag about the war and taking slaves and conquering and pillaging and that just makes me like them less. (I could post links but that has been done in threads ad naseum).

Also, the Foefire has some rather conflicting stories. From the wiki page: “The Claw clashed with Magdaer, Adelbern’s sword, and caused a spark of power that engulfed the land for leagues around. This event became known as the Foefire. The charr accounts offer an alternate version of the events. Rather than fighting to the death, his forces retreated from the city, leaving their king behind. In his rage and despair, Adelbern struck the ground with Magdaer, producing the immense burst of energy now referred to as the Foefire.”

In answer to the original question posed by the thread, the conflict feels personal because I identified with my Prophecies character more than my others and I identified with the story more, despite starting with Factions.

I’ve never heard of this “The claw clashed with Magdaer.” reference.

Nor do I even see that mentioned on the wiki’s foefire page.

Sorry, it’s on the Adelbern Page. My bad.
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/King_Adelbern

Honestly, the Charr version of the story is VERY believable given how utterly crazy Adelbern was. The entire ebonhawke expidition? all the civilians were either sent on it for speaking out against him, or joined the day it left. The historian implies it was moreso fear of Adelbern then love of the Ebon Vanguard.

Also the fact that no human survived seeing the foefire event that I’ve ever heard of, while the Charr had a warband survive the battle and return haunted.

Pyro.4765:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Honestly if you are going to complain about the writing this is the wrong subforum for you.

lol, isn’t this the subforum for the game’s writing and background as opposed to mechanics?

Correction then. You can do it but it is endlessly trite. What is done is done.

Kalavier.1097:

GW1 was from the point of view of humans. We saw nothing of the Charr but as beasts. Then Anet came in, and actually provided some of the CHARR STORY that we didn’t and wouldn’t see in prophecies because of the point of view! But heaven forbid that!

While the viewpoint of the Charr wasn’t shown in GW1 till GWEN, there are certain facts that are drawn from GW1.

The Charr were genocidal to humans. Those they didn’t kill they enslaved, often working to death, sacrificing in brutal rituals and, at least in one case, threw them to beasts to be torn apart for the entertainment of watching Charr. This included children. Those aren’t view points. They are actually things we see happen in GW1.

And while the other Legions weren’t leading, they did have members involved. Pyre’s sire was one of the scouts who infiltrated Ascalon use the Grawl to set up the Searing.

Kalavier.1097:

Most Charr tear down ruins to try to STOP the Ascalon ghosts from continuing to form. They build around them because ruins are almost all over Ascalon. YES, some are kittening kittens about it. Honestly, the one monument in BC is the most colored viewpoint, but elsewhere the reactions seem less pronounced. I mean, I certainly got NO hero worship feelings for the flame legion leaders of that day OUTSIDE OF THAT ONE MONUMENT. Which you have Charr scholars actually going “Um, that’s a biased viewpoint. We are here to find out the truth.”

Charr scholars? It’s kind of misleading for your to say ‘ONE MONUMENT’ and then say Charr scholars as if there are a lot of them. I’ve only found one who is a priory member say that and that NPC seems to suggest that the ‘biased viewpoint’ is the popular opinion.

One of the Charr’s better traits is a general intolerance of stupidity caused by pride.

Kalavier.1097:

About the charr and the war… The Flame Legion was in power when Adelbern caused the foefire. After that it was purely Ebonhawke vs the legions. ALSO the fact the Iron legion was prepping TO END THE WAR. Then the humans KEPT IT GOING.

True. Of course that’s ignoring that the Charr, who had been the agressors from the start of the war, had had Ebonhawke under a siege over a 100 years by that point. Its kind of misleading to suggest that the Flame Legion was overthrown and the next day the Charr started making nice.

Kalavier.1097:

Also, I’d say the foefire is a direct atrocity commited toward the Charr. and humanity both. It killed every charr on that battlefield, and the ghosts continue to try to slaughter charr and anything else. Caused by Adelbern, who refused to change his ways and that literally cost him everything.

Adelbern’s attack was very much an atrocity. My point was that considering the Charr’s conquest of Ascalon was greatly facilitated by the Searing, its kind of rich of them to talk, particularly since you don’t generally see them condemning the Searing.

paleon.7609:

Also, the Foefire has some rather conflicting stories. From the wiki page: “The Claw clashed with Magdaer, Adelbern’s sword, and caused a spark of power that engulfed the land for leagues around. This event became known as the Foefire. The charr accounts offer an alternate version of the events. Rather than fighting to the death, his forces retreated from the city, leaving their king behind. In his rage and despair, Adelbern struck the ground with Magdaer, producing the immense burst of energy now referred to as the Foefire.”

The true version of events is the Charr version. This is confirmed in Ghosts of Ascalon.

Adelbern realised that Ascalon City was going to fall and so chose to enact a ritual that trigged the Foefire. It wasn’t on the spar of the moment either cause one of his advisors found out and tried to stop him and Adelbern murder the guy.

Fun fact, that advisor had actually warned a charr warband it was going to happen to try and stop the whole thing taking place. The Flame Legion commander didn’t believe them and had the warband tied to posts outside the city so they could watch as Ascalon city fell. They were the only charr to survive that battle and were the ones who carried the story back to the other charr.

Lutinz.6915:

The Charr were genocidal to humans. Those they didn’t kill they enslaved, often working to death, sacrificing in brutal rituals and, at least in one case, threw them to beasts to be torn apart for the entertainment of watching Charr. This included children. Those aren’t view points. They are actually things we see happen in GW1.

And while the other Legions weren’t leading, they did have members involved. Pyre’s sire was one of the scouts who infiltrated Ascalon use the Grawl to set up the Searing.

Said throwing to beasts was EOTN though. This falls into the “Flame Legion lead everybody and had a stranglehold on control.” Also, as set up by the lore… Parents don’t have THAT much say in Charr upbringing. It’s not like Pyre knew dear old dad and was taught everything he knew about that. Pyre also was willing to work with humans and didn’t feel sorry.

Charr scholars? It’s kind of misleading for your to say ‘ONE MONUMENT’ and then say Charr scholars as if there are a lot of them. I’ve only found one who is a priory member say that and that NPC seems to suggest that the ‘biased viewpoint’ is the popular opinion.

One of the Charr’s better traits is a general intolerance of stupidity caused by pride.

Plenty of Charr in the Priory (Also there are at least three charr scholars IIRC investigating the ruins of Rin). Even then, outside of that location and BC… it’s not brought up or touched. Oldgate and IIRC, Piken Square ruins imply some Charr dislike the Flame Legion actions. I have never gotten the sense that the Flame Legion gets hero worship because of the Searing/breaking the wall.

True. Of course that’s ignoring that the Charr, who had been the agressors from the start of the war, had had Ebonhawke under a siege over a 100 years by that point. Its kind of misleading to suggest that the Flame Legion was overthrown and the next day the Charr started making nice.

I never, ever suggested the Charr instantly made nice. I simply pointed out that in the case of Ebonhawke, the charr made the first gestures of Peace and the Krytan prince ruined everything. Honestly, the way it all was described, the sieges were less of a focus of the legions and more of just something they did. Hell, we know for a fact at the cease fire being signed a human walked out of the gates with some beer, went up to the Charr, and both sides just sat down and had a kittening drink. Some mortal enemies they are if they literally can have a drink and become friends after that.

Kalavier.1097:

Also, I’d say the foefire is a direct atrocity commited toward the Charr. and humanity both. It killed every charr on that battlefield, and the ghosts continue to try to slaughter charr and anything else. Caused by Adelbern, who refused to change his ways and that literally cost him everything.

Adelbern’s attack was very much an atrocity. My point was that considering the Charr’s conquest of Ascalon was greatly facilitated by the Searing, its kind of rich of them to talk, particularly since you don’t generally see them condemning the Searing.

The Searing also is being healed and doesn’t plague the land with endless issues trying to MURDER EVERYTHING, human or Charr.

Honestly, the effects of the searing have long passed, the land is fertile and growing plants and the rivers are water, not tar. Ascalon is capable of supporting life. Meanwhile, the foefire is on the minds of everybody in Ascalon, EVERY SINGLE DAY because the ghosts are ALL OVER and CONSTANTLY ATTACKING.

Which would be talked about more? Something that happened over 250+ years ago, and largely has zero effect on modern life… or something that happened a while ago (admittedly, not terribly long after end of EOTN. I think the Ebon Vanguard got recalled and sent south during Winds of Change)… but constantly affects daily life, threatens many things across the entire region…

I mean, hell, one of the things that made the Charr not want to go to the meeting about Mordremoth was because their primary armies were all tied up dealing with the GHOSTS and Flame Legion primarily. And if the Ghosts could be taken out of the equation, THEN they could send troops.

Honestly… I think in a sense the issue comes from the human side refusing to take fault for what they’ve done. Ascalon has explicitly been stated to been taken from the Charr by force. Charr simply responded to this by invading back to reclaim their homeland. That’s what the siege of Ebonhawke is IMO… them simply trying to kick out that last pesky bit of the nation. Now there is peace forming and humanity WILL GET some of Ascalon back.

Yet that’s not enough. Most Adelbern ascalonians I see (aka most players it seems) aren’t happy at all unless the Charr just GIVE UP EVERYTHING they’ve taken back, and go back north of the wall and just throw away anything and everything they’ve worked on to ‘make it up to the humans’.

Kalavier.1097:

Said throwing to beasts was EOTN though. This falls into the “Flame Legion lead everybody and had a stranglehold on control.” Also, as set up by the lore… Parents don’t have THAT much say in Charr upbringing. It’s not like Pyre knew dear old dad and was taught everything he knew about that. Pyre also was willing to work with humans and didn’t feel sorry.

Your basically saying that the invading charr were only Flame Legion or that only the Flame Legion participated in the atrocities. There is no evidence of that and certainly no evidence that the charr at the time gave a kitten . Charr are extremely pragmatic and extremely brutal. Ends generally justify the means as long as the ramifications don’t come back to bite you in the kitten . This is a race where a higher ranking soldier (and every charr is part of the military) can gut you for a failure and the other charr will take it as justified. Pyre was proud of his father. We know his involvement cause Pyre tells the player. Pyre was also completely unapologetic about what the charr did to the humans.

Charr have many great traits but they can be pretty bloody amoral.

Kalavier.1097:

Plenty of Charr in the Priory (Also there are at least three charr scholars IIRC investigating the ruins of Rin). Even then, outside of that location and BC… it’s not brought up or touched. Oldgate and IIRC, Piken Square ruins imply some Charr dislike the Flame Legion actions. I have never gotten the sense that the Flame Legion gets hero worship because of the Searing/breaking the wall.

There are a lot of charr in the Priory but almost none of them actually share their opinions on the events of the fall of Ascalon with us so we can’t speak for them.

There are some charr who reflect that what was done to humans was brutal but most don’t seem to give a kitten . Most seem more kittened they won’t stay dead. Let’s remember that general charr opinion of humans has generally been pretty low till recently.

Kalavier.1097:

I never, ever suggested the Charr instantly made nice. I simply pointed out that in the case of Ebonhawke, the charr made the first gestures of Peace and the Krytan prince ruined everything. Honestly, the way it all was described, the sieges were less of a focus of the legions and more of just something they did. Hell, we know for a fact at the cease fire being signed a human walked out of the gates with some beer, went up to the Charr, and both sides just sat down and had a kittening drink. Some mortal enemies they are if they literally can have a drink and become friends after that.

They have a statue in the BC of the first charr to ever reach the top of Ebonhawke’s walls. The siege wasn’t a joke, particularly for those inside. Again Ghost’s of Ascalon made that pretty kitten clear. Hell, even visiting the Fields of Ruin and talking to the NPCs shows how deep those hatreds run and how hard it is for them to be buried. There is a Vanguard veteran who states she doesn’t think she will ever be able to completely abandon her hate of Charr but her hope is that that hate can die with her generation.

The great irony of the acts of the Separatists and the Renagades are they give the Ebon Vanguard and the Charr as shared enemy which actually pulls the two sides closer together. Funnily enough that’s how Ryltock and Logan first started off. It was others trying to kill them that got them to stop trying to kill each other.

Kalavier.1097:

The Searing also is being healed and doesn’t plague the land with endless issues trying to MURDER EVERYTHING, human or Charr.

Honestly, the effects of the searing have long passed, the land is fertile and growing plants and the rivers are water, not tar. Ascalon is capable of supporting life. Meanwhile, the foefire is on the minds of everybody in Ascalon, EVERY SINGLE DAY because the ghosts are ALL OVER and CONSTANTLY ATTACKING.

And it was ironically the Ghosts that Smolder used as the core of his argument to end the war with humans. The charr didn’t need more enemies at the time.

Again, I think the Foefire was an atrocity. However considering it was a similar type of magic (ie. forbidden) that handed the Charr Ascalon in the first place, its kind of rich for them to play moral superiority.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate the Charr, I don’t think they should be ‘bad guys’ and I don’t think humans should be reclaiming Ascalon. I actually want to see humanity move beyond clinging to the past save maybe for the Six to have some relevance to them again. I infact LIKE the charr, warts and all. The question in this thread was what we don’t like about the charr. Ive been talking about there warts.

Yes, the charr, like every other race has those warts and a good part of them are shown in how they acted in their conquest of Ascalon. Don’t try to whitewash them. Let them wear their warts like the Asura, the Norn, and most definitely, the humans do. Hell even the Sylvari now have their warts.

Kalavier.1097:

Honestly… I think in a sense the issue comes from the human side refusing to take fault for what they’ve done. Ascalon has explicitly been stated to been taken from the Charr by force. Charr simply responded to this by invading back to reclaim their homeland. That’s what the siege of Ebonhawke is IMO… them simply trying to kick out that last pesky bit of the nation. Now there is peace forming and humanity WILL GET some of Ascalon back.

Yet that’s not enough. Most Adelbern ascalonians I see (aka most players it seems) aren’t happy at all unless the Charr just GIVE UP EVERYTHING they’ve taken back, and go back north of the wall and just throw away anything and everything they’ve worked on to ‘make it up to the humans’.

Ok, I had to respond to this.

Firstly, the Charr reclaiming their homeland? They only had occupied Ascalon for around one generation and they had taken the land from the native Grawl living there. The Charr warred with everybody. Even the Forgotten.

Secondly, humans had been living in Ascalon for 1000 years by the time of the ‘reclamation’. How long do you have to live in a place before you can make some claim to the land. Anyway the whole basis for the war was driven by the titans which is why they went straight through Ascalon after the Searing and attacked Orr. Was their invasion of Kryta ‘reclamation’?.

Again, Im not arguing that the humans should have Ascalon back. They couldn’t hold it even if the Charr did pull out. Kryta is struggling to hold what it has and Ebonhawke is a pipe dream.

My point earlier in the thread is that Ascalon is a focal point for human fans because it is a poster boy in GW2 for what humans have lost and really for human lore that’s the primary focus. Not where the humans are or where they are going but everything they have lost. That’s a really stark contrast to what the other races have.

Humanity needs that future, that pride. Humanity in GW2 is frankly depressing, pressed by all sides, hardly being able to hold what it had and mainly due to self destructive behaviour of its own people. The peace treaty was useful and convenient for the Charr. The humans needed it.

Humans don’t need Ascalon. They don’t need Orr (and they aren’t going to get that back either). They need to be able to move on and stop feeling like they are a race fading away. Most of the races narrative is a ‘To Tomorrow!’ narrative. Humans have the ‘Just please let me make it to the next day’ narrative. Its depressing.

Lutinz.6915:

Kalavier.1097:

I never, ever suggested the Charr instantly made nice. I simply pointed out that in the case of Ebonhawke, the charr made the first gestures of Peace and the Krytan prince ruined everything. Honestly, the way it all was described, the sieges were less of a focus of the legions and more of just something they did. Hell, we know for a fact at the cease fire being signed a human walked out of the gates with some beer, went up to the Charr, and both sides just sat down and had a kittening drink. Some mortal enemies they are if they literally can have a drink and become friends after that.

They have a statue in the BC of the first charr to ever reach the top of Ebonhawke’s walls. The siege wasn’t a joke, particularly for those inside. Again Ghost’s of Ascalon made that pretty kitten clear. Hell, even visiting the Fields of Ruin and talking to the NPCs shows how deep those hatreds run and how hard it is for them to be buried. There is a Vanguard veteran who states she doesn’t think she will ever be able to completely abandon her hate of Charr but her hope is that that hate can die with her generation.

The great irony of the acts of the Separatists and the Renagades are they give the Ebon Vanguard and the Charr as shared enemy which actually pulls the two sides closer together. Funnily enough that’s how Ryltock and Logan first started off. It was others trying to kill them that got them to stop trying to kill each other.

Kalavier.1097:

The Searing also is being healed and doesn’t plague the land with endless issues trying to MURDER EVERYTHING, human or Charr.

Honestly, the effects of the searing have long passed, the land is fertile and growing plants and the rivers are water, not tar. Ascalon is capable of supporting life. Meanwhile, the foefire is on the minds of everybody in Ascalon, EVERY SINGLE DAY because the ghosts are ALL OVER and CONSTANTLY ATTACKING.

And it was ironically the Ghosts that Smolder used as the core of his argument to end the war with humans. The charr didn’t need more enemies at the time.

Again, I think the Foefire was an atrocity. However considering it was a similar type of magic (ie. forbidden) that handed the Charr Ascalon in the first place, its kind of rich for them to play moral superiority.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate the Charr, I don’t think they should be ‘bad guys’ and I don’t think humans should be reclaiming Ascalon. I actually want to see humanity move beyond clinging to the past save maybe for the Six to have some relevance to them again. I infact LIKE the charr, warts and all. The question in this thread was what we don’t like about the charr. Ive been talking about there warts.

Yes, the charr, like every other race has those warts and a good part of them are shown in how they acted in their conquest of Ascalon. Don’t try to whitewash them. Let them wear their warts like the Asura, the Norn, and most definitely, the humans do. Hell even the Sylvari now have their warts.

I think an other problem is the fact that some players just don’t like the Charr, just like some people don’t like Sylvary or Asura. So maybe that gets mixed up with the whole conquering Ascalon affair.

Daniel Handler.4816:

Is the Hobbit pro halfling centered…….. No kitten sherlock. Bilbo Baggins wrote the narrative and anything in it is from his perspective. You being an actual librarian seems a dubious claim now. This is not a mistake many librarians would make.

You can make your claims if and only if the voice in prophecies was omniscient. When I spoke to Gwen in the campaign did I also get to hear what was she was thinking?

Tolkien told the story mostly through the eyes of Bilbo, but there were also parts told through plain Jane narration. And no, Bilbo did not write The Hobbit the novel. He wrote many of the excerpts from the The Red Book…which he then used, along with personal experience, to write There and Back Again. It was an amusing literary device Tolkien used to add a level of authenticity to the story that is rare these days. And it was very good fun I must say.

I didn’t say I was a librarian, I said I worked in a library.

True about Gwen. But what’s that omniscient female voice-over I hear at the beginning of Prophecies? My mother??

The voice of GW was not entirely omniscient, nor was it entirely 1st person. It alternated depending on the situation.

Kalavier.1097:

Honestly… I think in a sense the issue comes from the human side refusing to take fault for what they’ve done. Ascalon has explicitly been stated to been taken from the Charr by force. Charr simply responded to this by invading back to reclaim their homeland. That’s what the siege of Ebonhawke is IMO… them simply trying to kick out that last pesky bit of the nation. Now there is peace forming and humanity WILL GET some of Ascalon back.

Yet that’s not enough. Most Adelbern ascalonians I see (aka most players it seems) aren’t happy at all unless the Charr just GIVE UP EVERYTHING they’ve taken back, and go back north of the wall and just throw away anything and everything they’ve worked on to ‘make it up to the humans’.

Answer me this then: Why did ANet writers decide to make Ascalon into Charr land in the first place? I mean, there are leagues and leagues of Charr territory north of the Basin, not to mention there were zero Charr ruins to be found anywhere in Ascalon. Before this game came out, just about everyone assumed, because of a plethora of in-game references, the Charr came from “north east somewhere.” Why then, was ANet so determined to kill off a human culture and claim “ancestral” ownership of the land?

Do you really believe that this was the most logical turn of events, or were there ulterior motives, non-verse related, behind it?

Obsidian.1328:

Kalavier.1097:

Honestly… I think in a sense the issue comes from the human side refusing to take fault for what they’ve done. Ascalon has explicitly been stated to been taken from the Charr by force. Charr simply responded to this by invading back to reclaim their homeland. That’s what the siege of Ebonhawke is IMO… them simply trying to kick out that last pesky bit of the nation. Now there is peace forming and humanity WILL GET some of Ascalon back.

Yet that’s not enough. Most Adelbern ascalonians I see (aka most players it seems) aren’t happy at all unless the Charr just GIVE UP EVERYTHING they’ve taken back, and go back north of the wall and just throw away anything and everything they’ve worked on to ‘make it up to the humans’.

Answer me this then: Why did ANet writers decide to make Ascalon into Charr land in the first place? I mean, there are leagues and leagues of Charr territory north of the Basin, not to mention there were zero Charr ruins to be found anywhere in Ascalon. Before this game came out, just about everyone assumed, because of a plethora of in-game references, the Charr came from “north east somewhere.” Why then, was ANet so determined to kill off a human culture and claim “ancestral” ownership of the land?

Do you really believe that this was the most logical turn of events, or were there ulterior motives, non-verse related, behind it?

Honestly, with the Charr not being truly unified there is potential for the three Charr territories to play out a pretty interesting political dynamic. As I said I do like the Charr, I just dislike attempts to whitewash their very brutal past and pretty brutal current culture.

Ascalon was hardly singled out as a human culture effectively ‘killed off’. All humanity in Tyria pretty much belongs to the same culture these days and its not really a good click with any of them. If anything there are probably more Ascalon influences in modern day Kryta than their are Krytan ones.

I think your comments, for me, just go to show my point stated earlier. Humanity has been overly watered down and so naturally fans of humans in GW2 will focus on the parts in GW lore where they had a richer and more diverse culture and dynamic. Even the sense of defying and raging against the odds has been replaced by what feels like a sense of exhaustion and fatigue in the human civilisation.

We won’t get back the human kingdoms of GW1. We won’t get back the Six. So humans in GW2 need to move on and find a new direction. My biggest fear is that in HoT one of the biggest plotlines humans have being the White Mantle and the Mursaat will get whitewashed ‘cause we didn’t have the Mursaat’s point of view.’ If humanity’s role in GW2’s story is just going to be swallowing its pride and making nice with every race that screwed it over in the past I’m going to be disappointed.

Lutinz.6915:

Your basically saying that the invading charr were only Flame Legion or that only the Flame Legion participated in the atrocities. There is no evidence of that and certainly no evidence that the charr at the time gave a kitten . Charr are extremely pragmatic and extremely brutal. Ends generally justify the means as long as the ramifications don’t come back to bite you in the kitten . This is a race where a higher ranking soldier (and every charr is part of the military) can gut you for a failure and the other charr will take it as justified. Pyre was proud of his father. We know his involvement cause Pyre tells the player. Pyre was also completely unapologetic about what the charr did to the humans.

I’m saying something more like “Not all Germans were kitten’s” in WW2. NOT EVERY Charr was Flame Legion, but Flame Legion was the driving force. Also, the “gutting for failure”, that is more blood Legion style, and not Ash or Iron. Pyre was proud of his father, but he also did little to influence the rebellion, he started it and then instantly backed off.

They have a statue in the BC of the first charr to ever reach the top of Ebonhawke’s walls. The siege wasn’t a joke, particularly for those inside. Again Ghost’s of Ascalon made that pretty kitten clear. Hell, even visiting the Fields of Ruin and talking to the NPCs shows how deep those hatreds run and how hard it is for them to be buried. There is a Vanguard veteran who states she doesn’t think she will ever be able to completely abandon her hate of Charr but her hope is that that hate can die with her generation.

The great irony of the acts of the Separatists and the Renagades are they give the Ebon Vanguard and the Charr as shared enemy which actually pulls the two sides closer together. Funnily enough that’s how Ryltock and Logan first started off. It was others trying to kill them that got them to stop trying to kill each other.

No, but it certainly wasn’t a focus of all three Legions. Also, what year is stated for that statue? Early on or recent? And for the hatred, I also recall there are TWO (one human one charr) who state they can’t forgive the other side. However there are also other npcs in the same area who state “Man, these guys aren’t nearly as bad as we had been told. The stories they told us aren’t entirely true…”

Kalavier.1097:

The Searing also is being healed and doesn’t plague the land with endless issues trying to MURDER EVERYTHING, human or Charr.

Honestly, the effects of the searing have long passed, the land is fertile and growing plants and the rivers are water, not tar. Ascalon is capable of supporting life. Meanwhile, the foefire is on the minds of everybody in Ascalon, EVERY SINGLE DAY because the ghosts are ALL OVER and CONSTANTLY ATTACKING.

And it was ironically the Ghosts that Smolder used as the core of his argument to end the war with humans. The charr didn’t need more enemies at the time.

Again, I think the Foefire was an atrocity. However considering it was a similar type of magic (ie. forbidden) that handed the Charr Ascalon in the first place, its kind of rich for them to play moral superiority.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate the Charr, I don’t think they should be ‘bad guys’ and I don’t think humans should be reclaiming Ascalon. I actually want to see humanity move beyond clinging to the past save maybe for the Six to have some relevance to them again. I infact LIKE the charr, warts and all. The question in this thread was what we don’t like about the charr. Ive been talking about there warts.

Yes, the charr, like every other race has those warts and a good part of them are shown in how they acted in their conquest of Ascalon. Don’t try to whitewash them. Let them wear their warts like the Asura, the Norn, and most definitely, the humans do. Hell even the Sylvari now have their warts.

Actually, the Charr don’t claim moral high ground about that. They hardly mention the searing at all really.

The Charr have issues. My Issue is when they get turned into devils who can never, ever be forgiven. When it seems like people just accuse every single Charr as being that way. I’m tired of just seeing hatred toward the Charr. “Why?” “SEARING!” And that’s it. Acting as if Iron legion continues doing kitten like that everywhere and they were the masterminds behind it.

Also, as of current story, Kryta is more secure. The war with Centaurs is certainly less of an issue now then it was ‘at game start’ timewise.

Lutinz

Agree pretty much.

Another question then: Why do you(all) think ANet writers decided to simplify the various GW1 human cultures into one monoculture? As Cantha and Elona are indefinitely off the table, humanity is essentially Krytan.

Reasons? Thoughts?

Because Orr was basically wiped out and very few survived it (IIRC, the only survivors were traders, merchants, and those travelling away from the place during the events)?

Because Ascalon now exists in the Settlement in Kryta and Ebonhawke only?

Krytan is the dominate culture because the other two local cultures simply don’t exist in great numbers anymore.

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Is the Hobbit pro halfling centered…….. No kitten sherlock. Bilbo Baggins wrote the narrative and anything in it is from his perspective. You being an actual librarian seems a dubious claim now. This is not a mistake many librarians would make.

You can make your claims if and only if the voice in prophecies was omniscient. When I spoke to Gwen in the campaign did I also get to hear what was she was thinking?

Tolkien told the story mostly through the eyes of Bilbo, but there were also parts told through plain Jane narration. And no, Bilbo did not write The Hobbit the novel. He wrote many of the excerpts from the The Red Book…which he then used, along with personal experience, to write There and Back Again. It was an amusing literary device Tolkien used to add a level of authenticity to the story that is rare these days. And it was very good fun I must say.

I didn’t say I was a librarian, I said I worked in a library.

True about Gwen. But what’s that omniscient female voice-over I hear at the beginning of Prophecies? My mother??

The voice of GW was not entirely omniscient, nor was it entirely 1st person. It alternated depending on the situation.

Hobbits wrote the Red Book of Westmarch. Tolkien used the writings as a primary and only source. Any narrative written “objectively” based on Bilbo’s narrative would be as if Bilbo himself wrote it. Tolkien is more editor than he is writer, which he himself maintains. At worst he is the works translator. To consider him writing his own subjective opinion into the story dilutes the authenticity of the writing he claims.

As for Gwen, whether the narrator’s voice is your mother or not, the fact remains the entire narrative is not written in the third person omniscient point of view. Therefore any part of the story that is written in first person that concerns lore can be subjectively evaluated.

Daniel Handler.4816:

Pyro.4765:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Honestly if you are going to complain about the writing this is the wrong subforum for you.

lol, isn’t this the subforum for the game’s writing and background as opposed to mechanics?

Correction then. You can do it but it is endlessly trite. What is done is done.

To explain this better. Discussions are always preferable when they argue over things we don’t know for sure. Versus arguing over things we do know for sure. In this discussion I have no problem with people talking with a fervor over items of lore. When people stop talking lore and start discussing complaints over story alone it becomes trite. No matter how many people are upset that Kasmeer is not straight, she will not suddenly become straight because of the upset on the forums.
Petition don’t protest.
A more constructive thing would be to write about how sexual orientation is not relevant to the gameplay experience. (a hypothetical, not my own opinion). Then at least the writers have something to work with. The people who are complain about writing don’t add anything helpful to the conversation other than their own opinion. And why would we start discussions based solely on dissatisfaction. This isn’t the profession forums, we aren’t discussing balancing.

Topic: Sylvari are Arthurian creatures without last names.

Thread 1: I hate that my role playing experience is so limited by Sylvari having only one name. I get people who are one named Sylvari making fun of me.
Responses 1: Well in this and this context Sylvari can have last names.
Result: This person could have just read the lore, google is your friend.

Thread 2: If the Dream decides our single name, could I ask the pale tree to bestow an additional name upon me.
Responses 2: Well, a lot of names are about wyld hunts, and those hunts do finish. I don’t see why the Pale Tree couldn’t give out additional hunts and additional names.
Result: This is speculation, and the forum is not used as google.

Daniel Handler.4816:

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Is the Hobbit pro halfling centered…….. No kitten sherlock. Bilbo Baggins wrote the narrative and anything in it is from his perspective. You being an actual librarian seems a dubious claim now. This is not a mistake many librarians would make.

You can make your claims if and only if the voice in prophecies was omniscient. When I spoke to Gwen in the campaign did I also get to hear what was she was thinking?

Tolkien told the story mostly through the eyes of Bilbo, but there were also parts told through plain Jane narration. And no, Bilbo did not write The Hobbit the novel. He wrote many of the excerpts from the The Red Book…which he then used, along with personal experience, to write There and Back Again. It was an amusing literary device Tolkien used to add a level of authenticity to the story that is rare these days. And it was very good fun I must say.

I didn’t say I was a librarian, I said I worked in a library.

True about Gwen. But what’s that omniscient female voice-over I hear at the beginning of Prophecies? My mother??

The voice of GW was not entirely omniscient, nor was it entirely 1st person. It alternated depending on the situation.

Hobbits wrote the Red Book of Westmarch. Tolkien used the writings as a primary and only source. Any narrative written “objectively” based on Bilbo’s narrative would be as if Bilbo himself wrote it. Tolkien is more editor than he is writer, which he himself maintains. At worst he is the works translator. To consider him writing his own subjective opinion into the story dilutes the authenticity of the writing he claims.

As for Gwen, whether the narrator’s voice is your mother or not, the fact remains the entire narrative is not written in the third person omniscient point of view. Therefore any part of the story that is written in first person that concerns lore can be subjectively evaluated.

Right…

So Tolkien objectively wrote Bilbo’s narrative…which came from Tolkien’s own imagination. Then additionally objectively edited Bilbo’s(his) narrative to give us the novel. Are you for real??

Your second point…even if that’s true, does that mean any part that is not purely 1st-person can be objectively evaluated?

Daniel Handler.4816:

Pyro.4765:

isn’t this the subforum for the game’s writing and background as opposed to mechanics?

Correction then. You can do it but it is endlessly trite. What is done is done.

Unless we’re talking about the lore…which, by your own admission, is a work in progress and never set in stone.

Kalavier.1097:

I’m saying something more like “Not all Germans were kitten’s” in WW2.

Heh…I knew it. I didn’t want to say it due to not wanting to invoke Godwin’s law but this is what the current Charr remind me of the most, the “Clean Wehrmacht” myth. A myth entirely generated post war in order to integrate the West Germans more closely into NATO, to discredit the USSR that bore the brunt of kitten aggression, and for many of the Wehrmacht generals to distance themselves from the kitten regime. It’s historical revisionism in the name of creating a “more palatable ally” and the Charr of GW2 fit this narrative so hard that I cringe looking at the Legions. The Wehrmacht Generals and many of the soldiers knew what was going on and either allowed it for their own ends or joined in themselves.

While “not all Germans were kittens” is true, it as an entirely different discussion in regards to the military due to the actions they carried out. I see the other legions much like a see many of the Post-War former kitten generals and leadership who were able to come to power in West Germany after the war by simply jumping narratives and distancing themselves from the kitten Party. Not unlike how the Charr legions try to convince themselves they weren’t right there with the Flame Legion marching for conquest and benefiting from, if not outright committing, those atrocities.

Is the short name for National Socialist German Worker’s Party really auto-censored here?

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Pyro.4765:

isn’t this the subforum for the game’s writing and background as opposed to mechanics?

Correction then. You can do it but it is endlessly trite. What is done is done.

Unless we’re talking about the lore…which, by your own admission, is a work in progress and never set in stone.

The lore is not the writing. Stop acting like it is. The lore is produced from objective aspects of the writing. When people argue lore they seek to either draw an objective aspect from the writing or argue an objective inference from existing lore. The more writing the more lore is produced. A retcons is when writers attempt to rewrite lore. You don’t gain objective lore from subjective interactions.

• Character who behaves like an idiot in chapter one might actually be an undercover agent in chapter three
• you don’t get to say they were actually just an idiot and this is a retcon unless you can prove without a doubt they were not pretending to be dumb in chapter one.

People complaining about writing are those who are sad about endings, but what does that do. I don’t like how X character acts in X situation. Do you seek a community of people who also don’t like Gwens personality? Do you want a retcons of your own? You can post trying to find people who like Quaggans and find enjoyment, or you can post about people who don’t like Quaggans and find collective misery. Or at least write what could change about the Quaggans to make them more tolerable.

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Is the Hobbit pro halfling centered…….. No kitten sherlock. Bilbo Baggins wrote the narrative and anything in it is from his perspective. You being an actual librarian seems a dubious claim now. This is not a mistake many librarians would make.

You can make your claims if and only if the voice in prophecies was omniscient. When I spoke to Gwen in the campaign did I also get to hear what was she was thinking?

Tolkien told the story mostly through the eyes of Bilbo, but there were also parts told through plain Jane narration. And no, Bilbo did not write The Hobbit the novel. He wrote many of the excerpts from the The Red Book…which he then used, along with personal experience, to write There and Back Again. It was an amusing literary device Tolkien used to add a level of authenticity to the story that is rare these days. And it was very good fun I must say.

I didn’t say I was a librarian, I said I worked in a library.

True about Gwen. But what’s that omniscient female voice-over I hear at the beginning of Prophecies? My mother??

The voice of GW was not entirely omniscient, nor was it entirely 1st person. It alternated depending on the situation.

Hobbits wrote the Red Book of Westmarch. Tolkien used the writings as a primary and only source. Any narrative written “objectively” based on Bilbo’s narrative would be as if Bilbo himself wrote it. Tolkien is more editor than he is writer, which he himself maintains. At worst he is the works translator. To consider him writing his own subjective opinion into the story dilutes the authenticity of the writing he claims.

As for Gwen, whether the narrator’s voice is your mother or not, the fact remains the entire narrative is not written in the third person omniscient point of view. Therefore any part of the story that is written in first person that concerns lore can be subjectively evaluated.

Right…

So Tolkien objectively wrote Bilbo’s narrative…which came from Tolkien’s own imagination. Then additionally objectively edited Bilbo’s(his) narrative to give us the novel. Are you for real??

Your second point…even if that’s true, does that mean any part that is not purely 1st-person can be objectively evaluated?

Do you really want to rob him of how his works should be interpreted, especially considering your admiring of Jess Lebow. A person who translates Beowulf did not write Beowulf. Tolkien portrays it as if he did not write the works, just translated and edited them together. That is him declaring that any subjectivity would be from either errors in translation or his source material. In a second edition he publishes he even declares that errors in the first edition was from Bilbo being under the influence of the one ring, and that he found “correct” versions published by Frodo. It is in its entirety prejudicial to hobbits and the opinions of a 20th century British male. Now one could say that Bilbo tried to be objective, but without access to Bilbo’s source material we don’t know. Which is why it was so easy for Tolkien to retcon events in his later works.

Daniel Handler.4816:

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Pyro.4765:

isn’t this the subforum for the game’s writing and background as opposed to mechanics?

Correction then. You can do it but it is endlessly trite. What is done is done.

Unless we’re talking about the lore…which, by your own admission, is a work in progress and never set in stone.

The lore is not the writing. Stop acting like it is. The lore is produced from objective aspects of the writing. When people argue lore they seek to either draw an objective aspect from the writing or argue an objective inference from existing lore. The more writing the more lore is produced. A retcons is when writers attempt to rewrite lore. You don’t gain objective lore from subjective interactions.

• Character who behaves like an idiot in chapter one might actually be an undercover agent in chapter three
• you don’t get to say they were actually just an idiot and this is a retcon unless you can prove without a doubt they were not pretending to be dumb in chapter one.

People complaining about writing are those who are sad about endings, but what does that do. I don’t like how X character acts in X situation. Do you seek a community of people who also don’t like Gwens personality? Do you want a retcons of your own? You can post trying to find people who like Quaggans and find enjoyment, or you can post about people who don’t like Quaggans and find collective misery. Or at least write what could change about the Quaggans to make them more tolerable.

All that stuff up there just means that whosoever controls the narrative rights, regardless of anything else, determines what is and isn’t lore. By that rationale, anyone, and I mean anyone, who is given the keys to the Star Wars ‘verse could write a book about Leia and Chewie’s secret affair, and love child-Wookie, behind Hans back, who becomes a Sith Lord called Harry, that has a fetish for Nerf burgers and hair perms. And has pink fur.

And no one could raise a finger in protest.

That’s got to be the silliest excuse for literary authority I’ve ever heard.

Daniel Handler.4816:

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Obsidian.1328:

Daniel Handler.4816:

Is the Hobbit pro halfling centered…….. No kitten sherlock. Bilbo Baggins wrote the narrative and anything in it is from his perspective. You being an actual librarian seems a dubious claim now. This is not a mistake many librarians would make.

You can make your claims if and only if the voice in prophecies was omniscient. When I spoke to Gwen in the campaign did I also get to hear what was she was thinking?

Tolkien told the story mostly through the eyes of Bilbo, but there were also parts told through plain Jane narration. And no, Bilbo did not write The Hobbit the novel. He wrote many of the excerpts from the The Red Book…which he then used, along with personal experience, to write There and Back Again. It was an amusing literary device Tolkien used to add a level of authenticity to the story that is rare these days. And it was very good fun I must say.

I didn’t say I was a librarian, I said I worked in a library.

True about Gwen. But what’s that omniscient female voice-over I hear at the beginning of Prophecies? My mother??

The voice of GW was not entirely omniscient, nor was it entirely 1st person. It alternated depending on the situation.

Hobbits wrote the Red Book of Westmarch. Tolkien used the writings as a primary and only source. Any narrative written “objectively” based on Bilbo’s narrative would be as if Bilbo himself wrote it. Tolkien is more editor than he is writer, which he himself maintains. At worst he is the works translator. To consider him writing his own subjective opinion into the story dilutes the authenticity of the writing he claims.

As for Gwen, whether the narrator’s voice is your mother or not, the fact remains the entire narrative is not written in the third person omniscient point of view. Therefore any part of the story that is written in first person that concerns lore can be subjectively evaluated.

Right…

So Tolkien objectively wrote Bilbo’s narrative…which came from Tolkien’s own imagination. Then additionally objectively edited Bilbo’s(his) narrative to give us the novel. Are you for real??

Your second point…even if that’s true, does that mean any part that is not purely 1st-person can be objectively evaluated?

Do you really want to rob him of how his works should be interpreted, especially considering your admiring of Jess Lebow. A person who translates Beowulf did not write Beowulf. Tolkien portrays it as if he did not write the works, just translated and edited them together. That is him declaring that any subjectivity would be from either errors in translation or his source material. In a second edition he publishes he even declares that errors in the first edition was from Bilbo being under the influence of the one ring, and that he found “correct” versions published by Frodo. It is in its entirety prejudicial to hobbits and the opinions of a 20th century British male. Now one could say that Bilbo tried to be objective, but without access to Bilbo’s source material we don’t know. Which is why it was so easy for Tolkien to retcon events in his later works.

I didn’t say I admired Jess, I just defend his writing.

It’s great that ole J.R.R. wants his book portrayed as if Bilbo wrote it, he’s just trying to give the reader a good sense of immersion. But actually saying, in RL, that Bilbo wrote the story is…is…

…well let’s just say that I want to get myself some of that Longbottom Leaf he’s smokin’.

Obsidian.1328:

Is the short name for National Socialist German Worker’s Party really auto-censored here?

Just some trivia: the short version you are talking about, which this forum censors, is actually an insult from the political opponents of the NSDAP. They never called themselves that. Some sources say it comes form the name Ignaz, which used to be attributed to a dumb person in southern Germany.

Yeah I didn’t know what to term it besides “short name.” It’s why I didn’t say acronym. Thanks for the trivia though, interesting stuff!

Lostwingman.5034:

distancing themselves from the kitten Party.

What sort of barbarian would distance themselves from the kitten Party? Who doesn’t like fluffy widdle cute things?

In all seriousness, you’re dead on with the “clean wehrmacht” thing. A lot of people talk about how the German army during world war II wasn’t ALL bad, but the truth is IIRC there was only a single recorded incident of the wehrmacht trying to prevent an atrocity vs countless instances of cooperation and direct participation.