Guild Wars 2

Role-playing is, to my mind, something you do alongside and around an MMO, not necessarily while completing content. If you restrict your rp options to what you can do in-game, you’re going to end up with a sadly impoverished character and story – even if the game tries to give you options, as with personal story, they’re always pretty limited.

Also, bear in mind that we have a few years at best between GW1 and GW2, with nothing in between in our own experience. It’s 250 years in-world. What was your nation, or your ‘people’ doing 250 years ago? I’d imagine most Krytan-born humans (regardless of ancestry) would have to read a book to tell you anything more than “Ascalon used to belong to the humans, and then the charr invaded.” It’s not personal to them, unless they come from as Ascalonian settlement family who pass down impassioned stories to every generation I suppose.

Killing human ghosts could be rough on a character, sure, but when they blindly attack anything that comes near them, assuming everyone to be charr enemies (as they do in Ghosts of Ascalon), I think you wouldn’t hesitate to fight back – especially knowing the ghosts will re-form soon enough.

Again: I have no objections in my character defending against attacks but I do object the game forcing me to help the Charr and be friendly with them. How can one roleplay a character with deep resentment towards the Charr when he’s forced to help them on every turn? Why can’t we join the Separatists instead of being forced to side with Jennah and her Charr-hugging ways? How can you roleplay “alongside and around” the fact that your character is a traitor to his own views and beliefs?

Limited options are bad.

slafko.1807:

Again: I have no objections in my character defending against attacks but I do object the game forcing me to help the Charr and be friendly with them. How can one roleplay a character with deep resentment towards the Charr when he’s forced to help them on every turn? Why can’t we join the Separatists instead of being forced to side with Jennah and her Charr-hugging ways? How can you roleplay “alongside and around” the fact that your character is a traitor to his own views and beliefs?

Limited options are bad.

You have objections doing renown hearts that help charr because it destroy your role playing? I do not see any reason why you would then have to do those renown hearts. Be a role player then and refuse to do those since it conflicts your characters xenophobic opinions. Why does the game mechanics mean that much for a role player that you would have to complete renown heart that your character disagree with? Wouldn’t it for role playing sense not to complete any renown hearts since those objectives do not actually change world in permanent way? Is there something that I just fail to see here?

If you are talking about personal story and that you have limited options there, how could personal story be so that it caters every single opinion that some role player has while maintaining universal storyline? Only way I see it is possible is that world is unique to each player, otherwise whole world makes no sense if world events are not forced on individual. Besides, even though you feel like hero of all things, world events happen despite what you do or don’t do.

On the topic, I do feel that “ninja zombies” are a bit unoriginal idea for “end” monsters. Original GW has mursaat, afflicted/shiro’ken, margonites/tormented and destroyers that were all original enemies, now in my opinion risen are just unimaginative. Hope future expansions have more interesting enemies.

slafko.1807:

What I am really baffled is when and where have I demanded a change in game mechanics. Are you even reading what’s being written or skimming through posts just to find something to turn into a Straw Man and then bash it with even more nonsense?

That is not actually what I am saying and lets not concentrate on who can “spot” more fallacies since it derails the whole conversation totally.

slafko.1807:

No, you can’t. Because the game makes you kill Ascalonian ghosts in order to help the Charr. You are not presented with an option to tell them to kitten themselves and if you ignore the Hearts, you cannot complete the map. Roleplaying is freedom to choose between several choices. Being forced to do something your character finds objectable is not good roleplaying.

Here is the problem. You consider that helping charr by killing ghost is against your character and hinders your role playing, but in the same time you consider that you need to do arbitrary achievement of completing map, which some would agree that is not really role playing since it does not correlate nothing what your character experience. Clearly you have different definition on role playing.

If go to specific instance where your character is “forced” to help charr kill supernatural vengeful ghosts that are killing every living thing wandering in their area (charr/human, doesn’t matter), then your character has option to leave area since it does not agree on his/her mentality to kill ghosts or (s)he could kill evil vengeful ghosts that haunt this world and send them to rest in the mists. This is a role playing decision.

Your personal decision then is to kill x number of ghosts to get yellow bar to fill up to get renown heart done for map completion. Why would your character care if you get your map completion?

This what I am after, completely different things. Majority of renown hearts have multiple ways to complete it, so I think it provides enough to role play character in multiple ways. Why would xenophobic character be in charr lands anyway? Wouldn’t it be against that character’s convictions to roam around “enemy” lands?

Explain me what I do not understand on your position and not just claim that I don’t read any of your posts and just straw man you. Those accusations does not help me one iota to understand your position.

The character cares because I care. Simple as that.

As for the straw man, I wasn’t claiming anything. I openly objected to you employing straw man tactics.

To conclude – yes; we have different notions of roleplaying. Not only that, we have different notions of a conversation too. Mine doesn’t require my interlocutor explaining him/herself to me.

Strickly speaking, like most roleplaying in game you have to decide to either work around mechanics that disagree with your roleplay or choose to ignore them. If your character isnt willing to help the charr then you can look at other motivations.

Using AC for an example, you dont have to be their for the charr. You can be their for the ghosts. These are your ancestors, cursed to an eternity of hate and unending service without ever finding rest because of the actions of a mad man. Perhaps you character doesnt give a kitten about the charr, but instead sees it as a chance to perhaps find out more about the curse in the hopes of freeing them from it one day.

That way its about your cursed ancestors, not the charr. Sometimes in RP when in set game worlds you have to get inventive.

Another example with that bit shooting the wall with the cannon. The Branded migrated down the brand. By helping the charr send forces to the fight the Branded, the reason for them trying to blast a hole in the Great Wall, your culling the number of Branded getting closed to Ebonhawke using charr lives. This way your destroying the wall for the humans living in Ebonhawke rather than the charr, with the added bonus (assuming your character doesnt like the charr) that your using charr lives as the buffer.

slafko.1807:

The character cares because I care. Simple as that.

As for the straw man, I wasn’t claiming anything. I openly objected to you employing straw man tactics.

To conclude – yes; we have different notions of roleplaying. Not only that, we have different notions of a conversation too. Mine doesn’t require my interlocutor explaining him/herself to me.

You keep accusing me of using staw manning, but fail to provide actual quotes. I am more than willing to admit being wrong or using fallacies, but then provide me reason for it, not just insist that “[I] employ straw man tactics” without any justifications for it.

We do indeed have very different view on conversations, since I would rather have conversation about the game and role playing in the game (even though I am not a role player, but you brought it up). You have gone beyond conversation and just started to sling mud. Instead of explaining your position decided to just criticize me personally, hence this is redundant.

Bogey.5423:

You keep accusing me of using staw manning, but fail to provide actual quotes. I am more than willing to admit being wrong or using fallacies, but then provide me reason for it, not just insist that “[I] employ straw man tactics” without any justifications for it.

I guess this is my second failure in providing an actual quote then:

Bogey.5423:

You have option not to do that achievement if that clashes with your role playing experience on game, but you do not have any right to demand that game mechanics have to be made so that it concur with your role playing experience.

As I have never demanded any such thing, you can do well and apologize.

slafko.1807:

Bogey.5423:

You keep accusing me of using staw manning, but fail to provide actual quotes. I am more than willing to admit being wrong or using fallacies, but then provide me reason for it, not just insist that “[I] employ straw man tactics” without any justifications for it.

I guess this is my second failure in providing an actual quote then:

Bogey.5423:

You have option not to do that achievement if that clashes with your role playing experience on game, but you do not have any right to demand that game mechanics have to be made so that it concur with your role playing experience.

As I have never demanded any such thing, you can do well and apologize.

Actually, you did some quote mining there trying to make me look like I used straw man argument.

Bogey.5423:

100% map completion is game mechanics achievement. You have option not to do that achievement if that clashes with your role playing experience on game, but you do not have any right to demand that game mechanics have to be made so that it concur with your role playing experience. What I am really baffled about this is that why use role playing argument against game mechanics? Seems that you like to use the baggage of role playing (aiding charr is unacceptable for your character) when it feel to fit your opinion and ignore the baggage of role playing (getting arbitrary 100% completion of turning every stone in the world) when it does not fit your opinion.

You have your own definition of role playing so that your character cares about you, which would not really be role playing in that sense for some. Like I said in above (full) quote that I am baffled about this argument, would explaining it then be correct way to do it? Or just starting to insist that I straw man you because I couldn’t read your mind about role playing definition that you use, which is different to what usually is meant by role playing. I do not see any reason to apologize you, since at the time I didn’t know that you mix up role playing and your achievement as player when it is convenient and differentiate those two things when it is not (which I even pointed out).

This isn’t even productive anymore and frankly we both deserve infraction on derailing the topic.

slafko.1807:

Strang.8170:

And moreover, hypothetic zombie apocalypse situations, your loved one turns into one, will you kill him/her/it?

If that’s not a stupid question, I really don’t know what is.

So you can´t see past the obvious.

It´s the same case for your character. Will he kill things that he may have emotional connection with, but are trying to tear his face off.

But since the concept of logic apparently completely escapes you, i doubt it´s even worth continuing this…

No, no and no.

Charr don’t worship anything. They don’t bow to anybody – they rely on personal strength and innovation. This is an advanced mindset and culture and as such it would be dumb to see them as enemies.

@Lekkuen.8530

All dragons minions are corrupted, as stated on the novels, they are mindless creatures turned to the particular dragon’s corruption. They are alive in the sense that they move and can be killed… yet they are still mindless and their “flesh” is changed. Zhaitan’s minions have putrid flesh, Jormag’s frozen flesh, Klaky’s are crystallized. Only the dragon’s champions maintain their minds. The svanirs on the other hand are not minions, they are followers so they are not “turned”

@slafko.1807

In the novel GoA it is stated that the ghost are cursed, by their own king no less, to never rest, never go to the mists and wander for ever in rage. This is the reason that they attack anyone be it human or any other race. So this are not gasper… more like wraiths.

As an as Ascalonian (my Ele is from Ascalonian descent too… BTW did you know that Logan asks you if you are from Tyria, Cantha, Elona or Ascalonian descent? how is that for RP’ing options!) I believe it is my duty to stop the mad king’s curse and let my ancestors rest in the mists.

Also you can’t kill the ghosts, it is repeatedly stated that they merely dissolve and reform in a couple of minutes, which is why the Charr have been unable to drive them away, so you are not killing your ancestors… merely getting them out of the way.

A few things:

1: The Charr Homelands did extend to Ascalon. On the map, EotN’s “Charr Homelands” are labeled “Blood Legion Homelands”, while the Charr in the Black Citadel go on at length that Ascalon is the Iron Legion homeland.

2: Civilization is as civilization does; humans kicked the Charr out thinking they were beasts, not understanding they were sentient and had their own society. No mere beasts could have such a regimented military structure as the Charr, for one thing.

3: The Searing – the event humans most hate the Charr for – was the work of the Flame Legion. Although it was still in good graces at the time, and the other legions were part of the ensuing assault. But the Flame Legion held a prominent position of power during the time of Prophecies; their decline started after the defeat of the Titans, and kept spiraling through the Destroyer incidents, the Battle of Ascalon City, and ultimately, Kalla Scorchrazor’s revolt.

So it CAN be said that taking out your aggression on the Flame Legion is attacking the source of the problem, if you want to consider it that way.

4: Whoever called someone xenophobic for hating charr is wrong. Xenophobia is an irrational fear of foreigners, and the other guy seemed to be fine with Norn, Asura, and Sylvari. His hatred is for Charr alone, which is simple racial hatred (in-world, before anyone gets all upset over the term).

5: Lastly, this argument about 100% vs “don’t wanna help charr” is, plain and simple, completionism vs. roleplaying. If you were truly wanting to roleplay the character, then you would pass on completionism in order to stay true to the character. Instead, you are making the character do things you think he would not do, because YOU, the player, want the shiny Gift of Exploration. (It’s account bound; you could always get it with a different character.) If you insist on completing these quests, then you find some rationale for your character to convince himself to do it, in order to keep the RP element intact.

P.S. Logan only asks ancestry if you choose the Missing Sister path. As both of my humans are legacy-named, both are Ascalonian and proud. (But don’t hold grudges for their ancestor’s sake!) Sorry, guess the above wasn’t “lastly”, after all.

The charr’s philosophy is «Don’t mess with me or my allies, and I shall never mess with you, aid me or my allies, and you have my trust.»

Humans chose their fate when they set foot in Ascalon.

Well, one final thing to add to this, to counterpoint with Duke’s #1 point up there… but we have no evidence, beyond the Charr themselves, that they ever were native to Ascalon (except, of course, the northern part of Ascalon where the Ascalonians never got to, at least until post-Searing).

In counterpoint, the Ecology of the Charr (written from an out-of-character perspective) points to the fact that the Charr initially conquered Ascalon from the native peoples that lived there (most likely the grawl and ogres).

So, again, their being upset about Ascalon appears to be less a question of ‘losing their homelands’, and more about the fact that they lost. So harping on against the Ascalonians for being the same way is a bit hypocritical.

Actually, we know that the charr were NOT native to Ascalon. They took control of it from its inhabitants as well (one of which being grawl). From the Ecology of the Charr, it states that the charr pushed north, then south along the Shiverpeaks – this implies either they originate from between Ascalon and the Blood Legion Homelands, or they originate from east of the Blazeridge and effectively made a horseshoe movement around that mountain range.

Though how long they held Ascalon before the humans took it is unknown, as is whether there were anything civilized (to any degree) beyond grawl is equally unknown. Though the fact there was one Khan-Ur who was killed by humans would imply that they held Ascalon for less than a generation before humans attacked around 100 BE.

So, TBH, the charr’s claim that Ascalon is rightfully their land is just them claiming “finders keepers” – humans, technically, have more right for being there longer.

(P.S., Mechos: the Ecology of the Charr is written from an in-character perspective).

It is? We don’t find mention of an author, like we do with The Movement of the World; was it a dev post who said such? I’m curious, since that might make it less absolute.

Don’t agree on the Charr being the enemy again, but I do agree with undead being the main enemy force has become a really tired concept for this game. It’s not that undead aren’t cool enemies to face, its just that’s way overdone in this game in general, especially 45-50 or do onwards I’ve noticed. Everything becomes focused on undead and the variety of situations and enemies from earlier zones is gone.

I think that undead being a tired concept is why Anet did it first – they already set up Orr as an undead place, they probably kept Zhaitan as undead for the flowing theme of Orr. Then take him out first and fewer undead afterwards…

ROGUEbabydoll.4208:

actually, to be honest… humans are the worst race in tyria, lore wise. they got magic and abused it. they killed for fun, for evil. they raided ascalon and took it from the charr (who were actually there first.. the gods created them), killing a lot of them in the process.

long story short, humans deserved it.

“Tyria flourished under the protection and the care of the gods. To aid them and serve as caretakers, the gods had servants – a race of serpentine creatures, now called the Forgotten. The Forgotten were meant to shepherd, teach, and care for the growing world, as well as the other beings that were to come.

It wasn’t long before Tyria was home to many: the charr, tengu, minotaur, dwarves, centaur and others. Finally, another race came to Tyria and they brought with them a desire for domination. They were humans.

Humans quickly spread and began to conquer all the lands they encountered.

… They clearcut jungles, preyed upon other creatures, and invaded the domains of the other races. This was when the humans drove the charr from their homeland, the region of Ascalon."

ascalon was and is 100% without a doubt charr homeland. the humans took that away from them. i completely understand them fighting for it back.

The only charr homeland is the one they came from. As was mentioned before the charr seized the land of Ascalon from other races that were weaker than them. The charr are no less ruthless than the humans. Now the human expansion was actually the actions of the gods, or at least 1 god in particular, Balthazar, who thought that the humans could easily subjugate the other races.

Another mention is the fact that the humans ‘misused’ the magic given by the gods, actually this is the other way. When the magic of the gods was given by Abaddon it was given to all races, and with enemies on all fronts this lead to massacre’s against the humans, as well as the other races. This is why King Doric, a human, went to the gods in Arah and asked them to take magic away.

On a side note, I have read nothing about the gods creating any race, with the exception of the Great Dwarf and the dwarves (which we could debate about for days). But in general, if anything, the gods may have brought races from other places within the mists, but there is never mention of straight up creation.

I wouldn’t be playing this game if everything I had to kill was Charr.

I feel bad enough killing flame legion and renegades.

Sverre.3590:

… In fact, all conflict in the entirety of GW1 came from humans and their gods.

I see, humans and their gods is why the Charr were at war with the Forgotten, before humans founded their kingdoms in Orr, Kryta and Ascalon.

If humans hadnt misused the magic the gods granted them, the gods wouldnt have had to limit them through the bloodstones, and if the gods hadn’t had to limit the magic of the mortals, abbadon wouldn’t have rebelled and then fallen, after witch sending the titans to lead the charr against the human civilizations, drive shiro mad, and attempting to end the world in Nightfall. In fact, humans are the source, indirectly or directly, of all conflict on Tyria, everything was fine until they came into being.

Interesting that you’d have to go as far as blaming humans for Abaddon’s rebellion and fall. However, in light of what happened after he ‘gave magic to the races of Tyria’ it seems more then likely that Abaddon had his own agenda when granting the use of magic to all races of Tyria. Regardless of divine plotting, members of all races, were responsible for their abuse of Magic, but at least one of them had the wisdom to ask the gods to remove that power from the world.

… In addition humans had the biggest, most powerful kingdoms in existance, how is it that a broken race of “savages” utterly crushed them?

The Charr had unexpected outside help in creating the Tyrian equivalent of our nuclear weaponry. Without it they would not likely been able to breach the Ascalonian defenses, they would not have threatened Orr, which would not have been destroyed, and the Mursaat would not have gained a foothold in Kryta- and Tyria in general.

Even in EotN, charr weren’t depicted as inherently evil, cause frankly that wouldn’t make for a convincing plot, there need to be greys within sides of a good story.

Indeed, the more details we know about The Villain the better the story becomes, easy evil is just flat and boring. As villain, or at least it’s instrument, the Charr did far better in Prophecies then the risen in GW2.

Btw, I really liked the change to the Charr in EotN.

Garenthal.1480:

… but why is it viewed as acceptable for the charr to bear a grudge for 1200 years and yet humans shift entirely in their viewpoint in the space of 250 when…most of their current issues can be pinned on the charr?

Because the Charr are less able to detach from their emotional history and their ‘savage beast’, while the humans are expected to overcome their emotional history and grudges and adapt in order to overcome the current challenge.

Lutinz.6915:

Secondly, who has a ‘right’ to lands is entirely a think of opinion. Since the human ‘right’ to Ascalon came originally through conquest, then the charr’s method of taking it back would seem perfectly in sinc.

For all we know those lands weren’t inhabited before the Ascalons claimed it. We don’t find any traces of ancient Charr civilization south of the Wall. We do know that humans lived there for more then thousand years.

Thirdly, Jennah established the peace treaty out of neccesity. She was very supportive of Ebonhawke, which I might add isnt actually part of her kingdom, in their war against the charr.

Kryta owes it’s Queen to the Ebon Vanguard. It owes it’s current existence to the Ebon Vanguard. The Charr’s (pre-)occupation with Ebonhawke is the reason the they never turned their eye on Kryta, supporting Ebonhawke is smart.

.. Her choice to establish the peace treaty is practical rather than some pasifist and ‘lets love everyone’ drive.

The Dragons.

While the Charr are caught between the hammer and anvil (Jormag and Ascalon & Ebonhawke) establishing the treaty required a great effort and initiative effort from the Krytans. It is fortuante the Charr seemed to have changed, and grown, as a culture since they cast off their ‘false gods’.

Well, I have to point out that the charr didn’t really have any architecture that we saw in Guild Wars. Most of what they have was centered around wooden barracades, and a few towers built with wood and steel wrapping. Their architecture was relatively non-existent/basic, because it was stuff built from scrap to meet their needs then and there. And you also have to remember that this was 1,000 years later. I’m pretty sure that prior to the human occupation of Ascalon, the charr were mostly nomadic, seeing as they called it their hunting grounds.

So essentially ancient charr architecture was similar to current day centaur or orge architecture.

Basically, we have no proof that they built anything substantial before Eye of the North, heck even in Eye of the North what they built wasn’t anything that would last 1,000 years. Not to mention, even if they did, when the humans pushed them out, I would expect humanity would destroy the charr structures to make room for structures of their own.

So make the Charr the enemy of everyone? Not the best of ideas.

Have to ignore game play elements for this and stick to strictly lore-wise features. If the Charr were the enemies then the Humans would be wiped out completely, or a small settlement would be left protected by the Norn. Without their Gods, or another supernatural being, the Humans are like weak rabbits in the face of the Charr army.

The Norn would be a huge hurdle for the Charr to overcome, however. If the Norn could actually play nice with each other long enough to mount a defense the Charr would have issues with Norn land.

The Asura hate each other, and if a life or death struggle happened I could easily see enough Asura working for the Charr to save their own hides. It’s not like they’re overly loyal to each other.

The Charr are no longer held back by an insane Legion leading them. A fully-offensive Charr race would be a silly enemy because they’re way too powerful in the lore. Completely loyal, willing to die, technological superiority, trained from cub-hood to be a solider, both genders are warriors, everyone follows orders without question. They’re the complete package.

I don’t think a God worshiping Charr would have the technology. You could easily write in that the flame legion don’t think relying on technology is good, just on strength and power of the dragons.

Alright, so you want to ignore the majority of the lore surrounding the Charr and say they want to blinding worship any powerful being.

In that case you have a very boring enemy.

Lande.5782:

Alright, so you want to ignore the majority of the lore surrounding the Charr and say they want to blinding worship any powerful being.

In that case you have a very boring enemy.

Dude, the point of wanting them to be the main enemy obviously means that you have to ignore the lore that affects them now… it should have been fairly obvious to you.

You can’t have a parallel universe where Charr are the main enemy, and somehow you want the lore from now to affect them. Different time, different lore.

And I don’t think they would be boring. Undead are boring. Charr would be much better.

Lyuben.2613:

Lande.5782:

Alright, so you want to ignore the majority of the lore surrounding the Charr and say they want to blinding worship any powerful being.

In that case you have a very boring enemy.

Dude, the point of wanting them to be the main enemy obviously means that you have to ignore the lore that affects them now… it should have been fairly obvious to you.

You can’t have a parallel universe where Charr are the main enemy, and somehow you want the lore from now to affect them. Different time, different lore.

And I don’t think they would be boring. Undead are boring. Charr would be much better.

I get that undead are boring, but what makes Charr interesting? what differentiates them from,say, Warcraft Orcs?

(personal side note. are you the same lyuben from the guru forums?)

FYI ascalon essentially represents the back and forth conflict of religions in the middle east. So draw your conclusions from that……

I keep reading over and over againt hat people are so surprised that the humans seemed to forget ascalon after 250 years. You realize that after Rome fell…people thought Rome and the huge empire was a MYTH in as little as 100 years?

The average human is pathetically short sighted in regards to history, while the more savage (read that as indian-like) cultures always remember things for far longer.

This is Anet’s way of poking fun of the fact that modern humanity remembers nothing as we regularly forget things and never bother tot ry to learn. Here’s a fact most american’s never know…George Washington started his military career as a British officer and had several spectacular failures in his career as a British officer.
This is only 250-300 years ago…pretty close to the ascalon issue in time frame.

Everyone in the British colonies were, well, british :P either that or a few indians or possibly some french sneaked in there.

@ Lyuben.2613

Charr are playable race now, and you want them to be one of the main enemy?

And how that suppose to look? You do realize that Arena.net will never do this?

They were an enemy in GW1, but now they are allies.

“I cheered when the seering happened in prophecies.”

Then you really don’t understand the lore that the Charr were conquering jerks well before humans ever declared war on them. They enslaved the grawl and tried to wipe out the Forgotten too.

What really burned the Charr was they were outfought, simple as that.

Also, I don’t see how you could possibly be in support of the slaughter of thousands of civilians, which the Charr did without mercy even after the initial Searing.

They also invaded Orr and Kryta, land that was certainly NOT theirs.

But people will always favorite their pet races I guess.

The alliance against the Dragons is a temporary thing from the perspective of the Legions. Charr like General Almorra are the exception.

When the Legions don’t have an enemy to unite them anymore, they WILL declare war on other races eventually. They have no interest in coexistence, only expansion of their sphere of influence, violently. You can hear this from dozens of NPCs, teaching their cubs that they are the ‘superior’ race, destined to rule, some even talk about attacking the Quaggans.

manwiththemachinegun.6873:

The alliance against the Dragons is a temporary thing from the perspective of the Legions. Charr like General Almorra are the exception.

When the Legions don’t have an enemy to unite them anymore, they WILL declare war on other races eventually. They have no interest in coexistence, only expansion of their sphere of influence, violently. You can hear this from dozens of NPCs, teaching their cubs that they are the ‘superior’ race, destined to rule, some even talk about attacking the Quaggans.

that’s assuming that they don’t turn upon each other, instead.

manwiththemachinegun.6873:

What really burned the Charr was they were outfought, simple as that.

Outfought with the power of beings calling themselves gods. Without that direct power the Humans are a rather weak and pathetic race, as 250 years has shown.

The fact Humans had to use power given to them by beings calling themselves gods pissed the Charr off, not that they were outfought. Hence why some of the Charr looked towards their own false gods. Once the playing field was even the Flame Legion caused the Searing and again taught the Human’s how weak they really are.

The act of the Searing itself was not a regrettable act for the Charr, nor should it be. It was a magical retaliation for a magical war waged against them. Fighting fire with fire.

Letting the Flame Legion and false gods control them, now that is a regrettable choice.

No, people give the gods too much credit. For the final time, the gods gave magic to everything, not just the humans! Humanity was able to take down the charr through their sheer numbers, and their faith in their gods. And while their choice to attack the other creatures of the world may have been influenced by the gods, it is never stated that the gods ever helped them in this endeavor, actually if I remember right Dwayna hated the very idea, and she was the leader of the gods.

No matter what you say, if you actually take time to READ the lore you’ll see that Ascalon DID belong to the charr. It was in their territory. When the six gods brought them to Tyria they just dropped them in charr lands, which they claimed as their own when they already had owners.

So imagine this. you’re a charr. You have your land. Then some small furlless creatures come along and say “Well kitten you, I got here today and now I claim this as mine” and of course they didn’t stand for that!

And remember the ones who were in power at the time was the flame legion so you DO have a charr enemy.

Also, if you say all this is not true, if you read even this small summary http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Charr#History you’ll see it’s all true. Right in the beginning it says Ascalon belonged to the charr.

As for the Undead being too boring to be considered enemies… Well you have to look at it through classes. The smaller ones are absolute idiots but the bigger ones will give you a run for your money (especially if you fight them alone) but I agree if you say they’re a bit too passive.

I happen to find the Risen rather interesting. They are a fresh take on a relatively old genre: the Zombie Apocalypse. That genre has spawned thousands of games, TV shows, movies, and comic books, and yet this one seems to make them stand out. I don’t know why. Maybe because they serve an evil dragon who wants to conquer Tyria, maybe because they are on a once-sunken, barnacle-encrusted island.
I don’t know. However, nobody is making you stay in Orr. You could get relatively the same rewards in Fireheart Rise or the Iron Marches. Just remember not everyone shares your opinion, just like you don’t share mine.

bionaknight.9210:

I happen to find the Risen rather interesting. They are a fresh take on a relatively old genre: the Zombie Apocalypse. That genre has spawned thousands of games, TV shows, movies, and comic books, and yet this one seems to make them stand out. I don’t know why. Maybe because they serve an evil dragon who wants to conquer Tyria, maybe because they are on a once-sunken, barnacle-encrusted island.
I don’t know. However, nobody is making you stay in Orr. You could get relatively the same rewards in Fireheart Rise or the Iron Marches. Just remember not everyone shares your opinion, just like you don’t share mine.

It’s the later forms of the Risen that interest me. Early on, all you really see are rotting charr, asura, humans, and norn (and btw, why didn’t we see risen animals/lesser races as well?). But once you finally make landfall on Orr proper, you get to deal with all of these risen Orrian, with seaweed hanging off and corals growing out of their backs. I liked the concept of the Eyes and Mouth of Zhaitan, and really wish they had expanded more on that. (And as a bit of a gripe, why end game spoilers aheadcouldn't Zhaitan himself separate into different dragons? When the megalaser sliced off both of his tails, I really expected them to start flapping those wings that were attached and then we'd have to fight off two undead lamprey wyverns.)

And on the topic of charr/human enmity, charr were only unjustified in their attacks and the Searing from a human perspective, because they were the victims. The charr were just taking back land that was once theirs, from some insignificant mice hiding behind their “gods”. Oh, and that the enmity hasn’t and shouldn’t persist into GW2 for a reason that was put forth earlier in the thread; it’s just not practical for either side to engage in a human-charr war right now. Humans were already fighting a two-front battle, with the charr to the east and centaurs to the west and north. And the charr had to deal with the now dishonored Flame Legion, and the humans, both living and ethereal, thanks to Adelbern’s last stand (Although the charr have been making technological strides that have started to lessen the threat of the ghosts- see iron legion’s arc, or Specter Warband’s outpost in Plains of Ashford). Now with the threat of the elder dragons, with their seemingly inexhaustible hordes of minions, and attacking from almost every angle? Wasting time on the back end of what’s been a century-long stalemate hardly seems like an effective use of resources, for both the humans and the charr.

Lyuben.2613:

Tom Gore.4035:

Lyuben.2613:

Their claim to the land is no stronger, than that of a bears, to America.

So you’re saying that native Americans were just the middlemen and they deserved to be (nearly) wiped out, because the Europeans just took the land from bears?

Wat

The point is simply this: land does not belong to whomever had it first.

If Charr had it first, it does not make them right.

How do you classify “right”. Being right depends on your pov, so you can’t claim either side is “right”. All that matters (It works like this in real life also) is who has the biggest army and the most guns. You control land because you are able to take it over and enforce your laws.
For example, why is the USA government allowed to enforce its laws on it’s citizens? Because they have a giant army/police force that you don’t want to mess with it. Its not like some almighty being (like a god) said, know what, white people deserve to rule this land! No, they brought guns and killed the natives.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, for clarification: No, it wasn’t the Charr’s, originally. They conquered it from the peoples that already existed there (most likely the Grawl and Ogres), and their ‘actual’ homelands were never invaded, save after they had unleashed the Searing.

The More You Know! rainbows

“Outfought with the power of beings calling themselves gods. Without that direct power the Humans are a rather weak and pathetic race, as 250 years has shown.”

They are still one of the five “major” races of Tyria, far above the still tribal Grawl, Hylek, and even the Tengu exiles. This after losing two kingdoms, fighting an extended war the Charr, White Mantle, Mursaat and helping to cast down Abbadon. Let’s give a little credit here so we don’t sound too crazy.

“The fact Humans had to use power given to them by beings calling themselves gods pissed the Charr off, not that they were outfought. Hence why some of the Charr looked towards their own false gods. Once the playing field was even the Flame Legion caused the Searing and again taught the Human’s how weak they really are.”

Your bias here is almost laughable. So mass murder and killing of civilians is justified to “teach someone a lesson”? If the Charr had launched a simple war of conquest to retake their land, that would be one thing. But they didn’t. It’s funny you accuse humans of hiding behind the gods, when that’s exactly what the Charr did when they used the Cauldron of Searing and worshipped the Titans. They wouldn’t have defeated Ascalon, let alone Kryta or Orr without that aid.

T"he act of the Searing itself was not a regrettable act for the Charr, nor should it be. It was a magical retaliation for a magical war waged against them. Fighting fire with fire."

Let’s just say I’m glad you’re not involved in any foreign policy. Nuking a population center is horrible enough. But the Charr not only invaded Ascalon, they threw children into gladiatorial slave arenas to fight for the death for their amusement. It was disgusting, immoral, and totally unjustifiable.

“Letting the Flame Legion and false gods control them, now that is a regrettable choice.”

The other Legions aren’t absolved of guilt just because the Flame legion called the shots. They had no problem conquering and burning all that opposed them so long as they were winning. But then humans killed the gods of the Charr, which they to this day deny, and kick started a revolution in their own order.

The righteousness of the Charr has been horribly overestated by a few lore articles, while dozens of examples of brutality and conquest seen within the games themselves are all but ignored.

Humans aren’t blameless, but let’s be fair here when assigning blame over who was a kitten to who.

manwiththemachinegun.6873:

“Letting the Flame Legion and false gods control them, now that is a regrettable choice.”

The other Legions aren’t absolved of guilt just because the Flame legion called the shots. They had no problem conquering and burning all that opposed them so long as they were winning. But then humans killed the gods of the Charr, which they to this day deny, and kick started a revolution in their own order.

while you’re correct that none of the legions are absolved, they atleast have taken measures to put their past behind them, paving the path to their redemption (if they choose to do so, the peace treaty with ebonhawk seems to be a start).

But what you’re wrong about is how the flame legion controlled the other legions. The fact is, legions never existed until the Khan-Urr was slain during the destruction of ascalon by the foefire. It was then four charr who had equal claim to the title of Khan-Urr that split the charr into factions, later becoming legions. Till now, they still havent solved the dispute of who is the rightful heir of the title.

so while none of the charr are absolved because of their distancing from their ties towards the searing, atleast the three playable legions are taking steps towards redemption for now.

castlemanic.3198:

manwiththemachinegun.6873:

“Letting the Flame Legion and false gods control them, now that is a regrettable choice.”

The other Legions aren’t absolved of guilt just because the Flame legion called the shots. They had no problem conquering and burning all that opposed them so long as they were winning. But then humans killed the gods of the Charr, which they to this day deny, and kick started a revolution in their own order.

while you’re correct that none of the legions are absolved, they atleast have taken measures to put their past behind them, paving the path to their redemption (if they choose to do so, the peace treaty with ebonhawk seems to be a start).

But what you’re wrong about is how the flame legion controlled the other legions. The fact is, legions never existed until the Khan-Urr was slain during the destruction of ascalon by the foefire. It was then four charr who had equal claim to the title of Khan-Urr that split the charr into factions, later becoming legions. Till now, they still havent solved the dispute of who is the rightful heir of the title.

so while none of the charr are absolved because of their distancing from their ties towards the searing, atleast the three playable legions are taking steps towards redemption for now.

Whoa, you are waaaaaaaaaay off. The Khan Ur died way before any of the Guild Wars games. The 4 legions fighting for control of the others is partially what made it possible for the humans to push them out of Ascalon, interestingly enough, this is very similar to the way that the humans fighting each other in the guild wars made them weak for Charr invasion. It wasn’t until they had been pushed out that the flame legion found the Titans and used them to wrangle control over the other legions. Then they caused the searing, and we move on to the future. The Flame Legion Imperator found the claw of Khan Ur allowing him to wrangle, once again, control of the legions after the revolution that Pyre Fierceshot created. It is this Imperator (not a Khan Ur) that lost the claw within Ascalon City.

It’s not necessarily known in GW1. Until Eye of the North you didn’t even know about the legions. All you saw were charr invading your homeland. Afterwards in Eye of the North you see charr fighting their own kind because they were through with the Flame Legion ruling over them. It could be said that each legion has always had a specific identity. Most likely what we saw in Prophecies was blood legion soldiers with flame legion backing while perhaps iron legion spent most of it’s time being blacksmiths for the other legions, which would have lead to their eventual control of seige weaponry.

But to answer your question a bit more in depth, the 4 legions were ruled by the 4 sons of the Khan Ur, I would assume that each saw their means to success differently and these began to rule the way in which their legion was run. So the Iron legion, for instance, saw their means to success through superior weaponry and armor (evolving into seige weaponry), the blood legion saw their success through superior soldiers, the ash legion saw their success through intel and sabotage, and last but not least the flame legion saw their success through control of magic.

There’s still something visceral in me with the charr, due to original GW. I get that the humans took their land and they took it back, it’s just the way the original game ran, it’s really hard to think of them as friends. Still, certain of them have become friends in the storyline, I can’t ignore that.

I do think undead/Risen are not a great foe here, as others have said, they are hardly unique as enemies. Mursaat in the original game, that was unique. Maybe instead of undead they could have gone with some reptilian species that was linked to the dragons?

Hi, please refrain from off-topic posting. If there is topic you would like to discuss, feel free to create a new thread in the appropriate sub-forum.

undeads ftw, especially when the plot unfolds the way it did so far thanks to A.Net

this said, I sincerely thought that everyone agreed at least on considering humans as the true main enemy of the world, the ultimate doom of Tyria.