Guild Wars 2

I’d like to start off by saying that as a whole I love the GW2 lore. Almost all of the background material comes together in a nice fulfilling way with references to GW1 that drum up mild feelings of nostalgia. For this, I cannot give more praise to Anet. All of that said, I have some pretty serious issues with parts of the charr lore.

Now, I know that charr needed to be the bad guys in GW1 and that any bad guy is going to be fairly demonized by both the story and those who associate with the story. Because of this, and my love of the first games story and lore, I have a very strong anti-charr bias. I try to remember my bias when I see things that annoy me and let things slide but there are some things that just don’t mesh.

First and foremost, the one thing that annoys me the most: the change in how we, the players, are supposed to view the charr. The first big thing that happens in GW1 is the searing, an event where the charr rain the equivalent of a nuclear holocaust down upon the entirety of the human kingdom of Ascolon. The searing killed an untold number of innocents and many went mad from the trauma of it all. We then learn through quests and other lore that the charr continue their assault both South into Orr and West to Kryta with the purpose of wiping mankind off the face of Tyria in a massive genocide campaign. In GW2 we are told that the charr are simply taking back land they had settled and been pushed off of by humans. Despite a land dispute hardly justifying attempted genocide, I could live with the charr having taken the land and being completely and totally unapologetic about the means by which they took the land if that was all it was, but it isn’t. The way the char intro and other pieces present the lore makes it seem as though I’m supposed to support the charr and their methods, and that I’m a kitten if I think that the charr are kittens or use some very kitten-y tactics. The constant whining about the whole foefire situation doesn’t help my opinion of them either. I’d personally like the charr much more if I could just call them kittens and be done with it.

Second, Rytlock is an insufferable kitten. I seriously hate this guy. I was on the fence for a while, despite not liking the charr race as a whole, I thought Pyre Fierceshot was a pretty cool guy and I wanted to like Rytlock too. But insulting Adelbern the way he did in Ascolon Catacombs was simply crossing the line. Our first time seeing evidence that the vengeful spirits may know something other that hate, and a possible chance to lift the curse and Rytlock decides to goad the King into attacking. While Adelbern is anything but reasonable, he more than redeems himself in GW1 when you stand with him in battle against the titans. Not to mention he has nothing but regret for his actions concerning his son, whom the good King mistook Rytlock for at first. It would have been very possible to use a ruse to calm the spirits at the very least, if outright negotiations weren’t possible (I’m inclined to disbelieve Rytlock on this point). Had I, as a human, personally been present in that fight knowing what I know about the searing and foefire and seeing Adelbern’s reaction to Rurik’s sword, I would have fought on the side of the king. No doubt about it. Finally, at least one aspect of Rytlock’s character doesn’t make sense: out of everyone in DE Rytlock should be most understanding of holding loyalty to one’s ruler and people above all else.

Third, Rurik was not under any definition of the word a tyrant. While I won’t try and say that the charr should love and adore (or simply not demonize) Rurik, he never ruled over any people and everything he did was to safeguard a people he loved and cared about. Nothing about that says “TYRANT.” It would be so much more believable (and accurate) for the charr to call him a brutal warlord who took no prisoners, or for them to claim he was a brilliant tactician and expert fighter who was ultimately scared away by the might of the charr war machine. Furthermore, Bonfaz Burntfur was Flame Legion, why do the charr, a group who is distrukittenl of magic because of bad ties in the past, revere him as some kind of great hero? If anything they should be glad that Rurik killed him because of the blow it dealt to the Flame Legion.

Oh great, I just deleted everything before I posted…here we go again. From scatch.

The main difference is the person that’s telling the story. Here you’re looking at it from the charr’s point of view, not the humans. Anet’s tried to make the lore reflect a real-world course of action, and so the charr paint themselves as the heroes. Is there any society that would willingly paint themselves the villains? Aside from that, the affects of the Foefire are much the same as the searing. The entire sieging force of the charr were incinerated. The effects were also longer-standing. You can see how Ascalon has healed from the Searing, and after the initial devastation the land wasn’t much more dangerous than it had been before. However, with the Foefire, after the attacking charr were killed, the ghosts have killed more from then up till now. The death toll on the charr’s end, due to the human’s Foefire, probably exceeds the death toll from the Searing by a good amount by now. Also, it’s a part of their everyday life. They probably all know someone who was killed by the ghosts, so it’s not surprising that they talk about it a lot.

As for Rytlock, I agree that he could’ve handled the situation in the Ascalon Catacombs differently, but that would’ve been a break in his character. He’s a confrontational type, and it’s by Adelbern’s actions that many of the soldiers under him have been killed. As for fighting on the side of the King, it has been mentioned in the books that the ghosts see all the living as invaders, aka Charr. Given that, no truce would have been possible. And even though it’s a character that says that, the actions of the ghosts when confronted with the living throughout the books consists of “It’s the Charr! Attack!”

And for Loyalty? Wouldn’t he be showing Loyalty by trying to take out the threat to his people in the best way he knows how? He doesn’t trust the promises of living humans, so why would he try to strike a deal with a dead one?

Rurik is called a tyrant? Where? I don’t remember that one…

Bonfaz Burntfur is revered as a great hero because he was a great leader in the fight against the humans. Just because a charr was from the flame legion doesn’t meant that when they split, all the heroes before then were erased. There are still some, even shortly before the foefire (whatever that warband was that witnessed it, don’t have my book at the moment) who are hailed as heroes because of what they did for the Charr as a whole.

Hope I was clear on what I’m trying to say for the most part. Cheers!

Rorc.4619:

Oh great, I just deleted everything before I posted…here we go again. From scatch.

The main difference is the person that’s telling the story. Here you’re looking at it from the charr’s point of view, not the humans. Anet’s tried to make the lore reflect a real-world course of action, and so the charr paint themselves as the heroes. Is there any society that would willingly paint themselves the villains? Aside from that, the affects of the Foefire are much the same as the searing. The entire sieging force of the charr were incinerated. The effects were also longer-standing. You can see how Ascalon has healed from the Searing, and after the initial devastation the land wasn’t much more dangerous than it had been before. However, with the Foefire, after the attacking charr were killed, the ghosts have killed more from then up till now. The death toll on the charr’s end, due to the human’s Foefire, probably exceeds the death toll from the Searing by a good amount by now. Also, it’s a part of their everyday life. They probably all know someone who was killed by the ghosts, so it’s not surprising that they talk about it a lot.

As for Rytlock, I agree that he could’ve handled the situation in the Ascalon Catacombs differently, but that would’ve been a break in his character. He’s a confrontational type, and it’s by Adelbern’s actions that many of the soldiers under him have been killed. As for fighting on the side of the King, it has been mentioned in the books that the ghosts see all the living as invaders, aka Charr. Given that, no truce would have been possible. And even though it’s a character that says that, the actions of the ghosts when confronted with the living throughout the books consists of “It’s the Charr! Attack!”

And for Loyalty? Wouldn’t he be showing Loyalty by trying to take out the threat to his people in the best way he knows how? He doesn’t trust the promises of living humans, so why would he try to strike a deal with a dead one?

Rurik is called a tyrant? Where? I don’t remember that one…

Bonfaz Burntfur is revered as a great hero because he was a great leader in the fight against the humans. Just because a charr was from the flame legion doesn’t meant that when they split, all the heroes before then were erased. There are still some, even shortly before the foefire (whatever that warband was that witnessed it, don’t have my book at the moment) who are hailed as heroes because of what they did for the Charr as a whole.

Hope I was clear on what I’m trying to say for the most part. Cheers!

I can certainly see your point about hearing about the charr from the charr point of view and getting a very biased opinion of them, but it feels to me like the charr point of view is considered to be the “correct” point of view. To me it’s almost akin to telling me that there’s a correct set of political views to have. Almost like someone forcing their political or religious views on others. This is especially prevalent in human quests where we’re told to drum up support for the human-charr peace treaty. Perhaps I only grudgingly accept the treaty because of the threat of dragons? The charr view of the treaty seems to be one of grudging acceptance due to dragons while the official human one is more about needing it to survive or not being able to ever defeat the charr.

In AC Adelbern mistakes Rytlock, a living charr, for his own son; at the very least this would imply that Adelbern has some sense of self and can distinguish that not all beings are either charr or traitors. If Solothin had been given to a human to take the role of the prince maybe the curse could have been lifted, undone by the same person who cast it. It certainly would have made for more interesting writing in my opinion.

Rurik is called a tyrant by a charr who stands near the Stormcaller in Black Citadel when spoken to. This is an otherwise very knowledgeable (if biased) charr that gives an extremely unflattering account of the events of Nolani Academy.

Finally, I’m not frustrated because the charr are biased towards charr, but more because of the slander of old, beloved, well-written characters. These are some of the only accounts that some players will ever see of Prince Rurik and King Adelbern, two very well-written characters from GW1. Furthermore, building up old foes that you’ve defeated is common practice in history: the stronger the foes you’ve defeated, the stronger you must be to have beaten them.

What baffles me is that not one, but two human nations destroyed themselves and yet the charr seem to lose very little. Even the aftermath of the Foefire doesn’t really serve as much of a deterrent and the charr deal with most of the Ascalonian ghosts with apparent ease.

I just feel as the charr as a whole are leaning a little too closely to the dreaded ‘special snowflake’ territory. What exactly are their weaknesses? They’ve immense military and technological prowess and seem to rarely fail at the tasks they set their forces to, with the exception of Ebonhawke. They were also (and seemingly still are) incredibly cruel to their prisoners. Did they still eat humans up until the peace treaty came to light? Did they still torture and enslave prisoners until they either died or became food for hungry charr? This was all heavily implied back in GW1, yet is absent from GW2 in large part.

I also agree that the ‘slander’ of older characters is a little disappointing. Adelbern was a bitter man, true, though he had his reasons for doing what he did. I also don’t buy the excuse that the charr were simply taking back their land. They weren’t – since they didn’t stop at Ascalon. In all honesty, I’m starting to believe that the charr were initially intended to be outright villains until GW2 came to light, at which point they ended up becoming a playable race. That works in theory, but in practice I don’t think enough is done to make them accountable for the problems they created in the first place.

I’d also like to point out that issues do not suddenly vanish simply due to the emergence of a greater threat. For many people in Tyria, the Dragons are a threat, but they’re not the immediate threat.

Do remember that in GW1 we really mainly only get one side of the story (the human one) and we mainly see a charr society under the yoke of a pretty brutal theocracy. Also we need to realise much of current Charr society was shaped by the humans in the first place. The whole reason they looked to the Titans as gods was because they got driven out by the humans.

Also Adelbern was a stubborn and bitter man back in GW1 when he continually refused add from Kryta even when his people desperately needed it. Instead he ended up cursing almost every human in Ascalon to an eternity of endless hate and conflict.

Arenanet has writen the story so we hear it from both sides. From the Charr side the humans and their heros are bad guys. In both cases youll find alot of historical inaccuracies. This goes on to much of the lore in game. Orr is full of revelations. All races present history in a very bias way. Humanity is very guilty of this.

As for the threat of the Dragons, when it comes to Charr/Human relations it is very real for the main parties still fighting. The Dragonbrand passes right past Ebonhawke. For the Ebon Vanguard and the Charr the threat of the dragons is very real and very close to home. For the rest of humanity the Charr invasion of Ascalon is old history. Its a battle long since lost. The fact that Ebonhawke has stood till the Charr have negociated peace is one hell of a testiment to those who defended it.

It’s not the biased viewpoints that are the issue, though. The charr walk away from pretty much anything unscathed and are better off for it. Ascalon and Orr’s destruction did more damage to humanity than it did to the charr. The same can be said of the Searing, though that is more logical. The Flame Legion’s departure from charr society also serves to make them stronger. I hate to say it, but they suffer from the same issue as orcs do in WoW’s setting – they’re swiftly becoming the dominant ‘pet’ race. It may not be intentional, but that’s how it looks to more than few lore fans.

Lutinz.6915:

Do remember that in GW1 we really mainly only get one side of the story (the human one) and we mainly see a charr society under the yoke of a pretty brutal theocracy. Also we need to realise much of current Charr society was shaped by the humans in the first place. The whole reason they looked to the Titans as gods was because they got driven out by the humans.

See, I have a few small problems with this. First of all, before GW:EN it was implied that the charr worshiped the titans because the charr worshiped fire. What would have been wrong with the titans being false gods that the charr so readily accepted because they already worshiped flame and fire? Why do humans need to be the catalyst for every evil action the charr take? When does something they charr did in the past become the fault of the charr and cease to be the fault of humans?

Now, I do realize that all actions have repercussions and that neither the charr nor the humans live in a vacuum, the actions of one race will affect the other. However, making everything that the charr did a direct result of human action is bad writing. Next we’ll be told that charr only ate their prisoners because a charr escapee told horror stories to other charr about humans eating the flesh of other charr prisoners.

Lutinz.6915:

Also Adelbern was a stubborn and bitter man back in GW1 when he continually refused add from Kryta even when his people desperately needed it. Instead he ended up cursing almost every human in Ascalon to an eternity of endless hate and conflict.

Here’s the thing, there’s a bit of a disconnect between the lore concerning humans and charr right around the area of GW:EN. The actions of King Adelbern in Prophecies paint the picture of a war-hardened, stubborn old man who would give all (and ultimately did) for his country. Adelbern was not some ruler who sent soldiers to needless deaths, he himself fought on the front-lines with his men to save the only thing he had left: the tattered remains of a once great kingdom. While the Foefire does strike me as something the king in one of his fits of anger would do had he been alone, the King Adelbern I knew wouldn’t have done something like that so lightly, nor would he have condemned his loyal subjects.

Lutinz.6915:

Arenanet has writen the story so we hear it from both sides. From the Charr side the humans and their heros are bad guys. In both cases youll find alot of historical inaccuracies. This goes on to much of the lore in game. Orr is full of revelations. All races present history in a very bias way. Humanity is very guilty of this.

Haven’t spent time in Orr, so I can’t really add anything here.

Lutinz.6915:

As for the threat of the Dragons, when it comes to Charr/Human relations it is very real for the main parties still fighting. The Dragonbrand passes right past Ebonhawke. For the Ebon Vanguard and the Charr the threat of the dragons is very real and very close to home. For the rest of humanity the Charr invasion of Ascalon is old history. Its a battle long since lost. The fact that Ebonhawke has stood till the Charr have negociated peace is one hell of a testiment to those who defended it.

This has been something that’s always bothered me. It’s been 250 years since the fall of Ascalon, so we’re supposed to not care anymore. The human kingdom of Ascalon was established in 100 BE, after the charr had been pushed out, the Great Northern Wall didn’t fall until 1072 AE; that’s 1172 years of human settlement. Why do humans in game claim the Searing was ancient history and imply that those mad about it have something wrong with them, when the charr have an entire genocide campaign justified to claim lands they hadn’t seen in over a millennium?

It seems to me that the humans had every intent of wiping out the entire Charr race if they had the chance and the Charr were aware of this and weren’t going to stop until they felt safe. Look at it from a non human perspective. What does the Norn, Sylvari or Asura think of that war? Two races fighting to the death, both performing horrible atrocities, the searing, the foefire and the sinking of Orr, just to gain an upperhand and neither willing to stop until something worse came around. It became a racial issue, an old hate, and neither side was innocent.

wait what. You cared when rytlock insulted Aldebern? I didnt give even a single kitten.
1. Disowns prince who is trying to save ascalonian people
2. Later im pretty sure he blames you for sons death
3. whines at you for vanishing when he’s fighting the titans
4. brings 4 soldiers and himself to fight entire charr army in a tiny 4 man zone and the titans are there too, and you cant let him die! ;__;
5. kills all the ascalonians who survived the first fiery holocaust in another fiery holocaust, trapping their spirits for eternity

Khyron.8735:

It seems to me that the humans had every intent of wiping out the entire Charr race if they had the chance and the Charr were aware of this and weren’t going to stop until they felt safe. Look at it from a non human perspective. What does the Norn, Sylvari or Asura think of that war? Two races fighting to the death, both performing horrible atrocities, the searing, the foefire and the sinking of Orr, just to gain an upperhand and neither willing to stop until something worse came around. It became a racial issue, an old hate, and neither side was innocent.

But everything we know and have seen imply that’s wrong. In GW1 the war was brought to the humans by the charr. The humans had built a a few cities and a gigantic wall to protect the majority of the countryside from raids. The Great Northern Wall wouldn’t have been constructed had the humans been actively trying to wipe out all the charr, it would have been too large an investment both in cost and construction time. The Wall itself was not built until 898 AE, and it’s position is a good indicator of what the humans at that time felt was necessary to protect from the charr. We’ve seen in GW:EN how much land the charr occupy north of the wall, if the charr control everything from the wall north, the Kingdom of Ascalon seems insignificant (being only a quarter of the size). If everything touched by the searing was firmly human controlled (which cannot be the case due to the existence of the Wall) then the charr lands are about the same size as the human lands, if they don’t spread any further east than shown on the map (not likely).

Zenyatoo.4059:

wait what. You cared when rytlock insulted Aldebern? I didnt give even a single kitten.
1. Disowns prince who is trying to save ascalonian people

In the time peroid that GW1 is set in to openly question the King’s authority was considered the highest form of insult and in many cases regarded as treason. In most cases such actions were dealt with by immediate execution. This actually went double for those related to the Crown in some way, as the threat of insighting a coup was very real. Rurik, in the presence of the King’s personal guard and rank and file solders called the King a fool and outright stated that staying and fighting would be condemning all Ascalonians to their deaths. The fact that Adelbern didn’t have his son killed right then and there (or a few minutes later when Rurik leaves with Ascalon’s new most treasured resource, people) shows how much he cared for Rurik. Furthermore, the King in the final quest is very obviously upset about his actions and wishes that things hadn’t turned out the way they did.

Zenyatoo.4059:

2. Later im pretty sure he blames you for sons death

Pure unsubstantiated conjecture. He’s bitter that things happened the way they did, but his final dialouge implies he blames himself, not the PC for Rurik’s death.

Zenyatoo.4059:

3. whines at you for vanishing when he’s fighting the titans

Your character deserted the Ascalonian army when you left with Rurik and went off to become a big kittened hero. Of course he’s frusterated that the main story wasn’t saving Ascalon.

Zenyatoo.4059:

4. brings 4 soldiers and himself to fight entire charr army in a tiny 4 man zone and the titans are there too, and you cant let him die! ;__;

When the King dies, Ascalon dies with it. Adelbern did nothing he deserved to die for. He was dealt a bad had and forced to play it the best he could knowing that the fate of an entire nation was on the table. Ultimately, he tried to hold on to too much and he paid for it dearly, but can you really fault him for trying to protect the nation he grew up in? Let’s also not forget the fate of Gwen, she refuses to talk about her time spent in charr captivity and has some severe mental instabilities; these are traits that are quite common to victims of the highest degree of unsolicited forced sexual encounters. Gwen was a child when she was captured. You can do the math on that implication.

Zenyatoo.4059:

5. kills all the ascalonians who survived the first fiery holocaust in another fiery holocaust, trapping their spirits for eternity

This doesn’t happen until Guild Wars 2, where for some reason the writers felt the need to go back and make some of the humans who made questionable choices in the past objectively evil.

Had Adelbern been intended as a bad man in GW1 we wouldn’t have had to protect him in those final quests and his final speech would have much more condemning.

1. In Nightfall a charr shaman trapped in the Realm of Torment explains how the charr discovered the titans and began worshiping them as gods. Do remember the entire charr invasion was simply part of Abaddon’s plans and primarily targeted at Orr.

It doesnt state at any time the charr worshipped fire. In GW:EN we learn a bit more in that the charr were driven from their lands by invading humans. This is lore from as early as Prophicies. Considering the invading humans had the gods on their side literally its not suprising that the charr in trying to figure out why they lost would see that as the key.

Humans arent the catalyst for all the evils charr do. I never said they were. Before the humans turned up the charr quite probably took the lands of Ascalon from the natives that lived there before.

2. As for things like eating prisoners its hard to know details. The Flame Legion was the dominant force in charr society at the time. Most of the charr linked to Gwen’s experiances with them were Flame Legion. And the Flame Legion was very brutal even to its own people. Having said that Id not be suprised if the charr did eat captives particularly in a scorched enviroment like Ascalon was after the Searing and considering that the charr are carnivores. Charr generally arent that nice to prisoners anyway. The charr dont seem to practice that now though.

Perhaps it is all true but charr society has changed alot and youll have trouble these days punishing anyone guilty of doing it back then since they are all dead.

3. Adelbern cracked. He’d been fraying since Prophecies. He was a man who was trapped by his pride and by old hatreds. He couldnt let his grudges from the Guild Wars go even when his own people were at stake. When Ascalon City fell he basicly cracked.

On a side note the humans originally had a very heroic story of Adelbern heroicly fighting the Flame Legion Imperitor and the Claw of the Khan Ur and Magdear clashing causing the Foefire which we discover is blatently false. Thats my point about different sides bending the truth to make things look better. Pop down into the Ruins of Rin and you will find a charr from the Durmond Priory trying to learn the true events of what happened on the day that stormcaller was blown. As Durmond Priory NPCs often say ‘History never lies, Historians however….’

4. The Searing is old history. Hell, even the enviroment as mostly recovered from it. To put an event that none of the charr or humans living today were part of or experianced ahead of the welfare of the people alive with today is stupid. The War for Ascalon was lost the moment the Foefire happened. Continuing that fight now acheives nothing but entrenching old hatreds and getting people killed for those hatreds.

The Searing has mostly been avenged against the primary ones responsable for it. The Flame legion is under seige, all the primary shamans we see involved in it get killed in GW1, the titans are wiped out and Abaddon who was behind it all got killed. The charr have driven the humans out as completely as the humans drove the charr out the first time.

Alot of humans in GW2 care about Ascalon and the Searing. It comes up constantly in dialog particularly in Durmond Priory camps in the Charr zones. Many of the humans there are there because they want to preserve what they can of Ascalon’s history and heritage.

The question is, is it worth the lives of the people you have now. Fighting the charr now achieves nothing and with all the other threats humanity has on its plate is pretty counterproductive.

You most likely got that impression because gw1 had only the human side of the story.The explanation for orr and kryta is : humans took their land, the charr take it back and have their vengeance on kryta and orr(the same way the ebon vanguard in gw:en attack the blood legion homelands’ territory).If not for the treaty all human resources would still be wasted at ebonhawke which at the end the charr used to test their war machines (implying they weren’t even serious about it) and even if they won the battle there what would they do? Go back to the ruins of ascalon and get slaughtered by the mad spirits? And about Bonfaaz – he is revered as a hero because the searing he caused broke the wall to their original homeland and then Rurik kills him…

As for the searing being forgotten: does anybody else praise the mursaat for stopping the charr invasion in kryta? No.Does anybody still care about the cataclysm? No.The explanation for the second one can be used for ascalon too: it got “overlapped” by a bigger event (the foefire which is bad for all races since the ghost don’t make a differance).

I’ll just note here that to my own human character, as I’m roleplaying her, the whole issue of the Searing and the human-charr war is kind of irrelevant. As I RP her, she’s a descendant of Elonian refugees (specifically of my GW1 title character, in fact she’s her namesake and follows the same profession, mesmer), so she never had anything psychologically invested in Ascalon in the first place and has no particular animus against charr. The undead, on the other hand, are a whole different story. Her ancestors were driven out of Elona by Palawa Joko and his hordes, so she tends to react…badly…when she sees anything undead, be it Ascalonian ghosts or Risen.

My point is, there are a lot of humans in GW2, whether they be native Krytans going back before the time of GW1, or emigrants from Elona or Cantha, who really don’t give akittenabout Ascalon and are a lot less likely to swallow Ascalonian propaganda about the charr.

Insanitybg.4217:

You most likely got that impression because gw1 had only the human side of the story.The explanation for orr and kryta is : humans took their land, the charr take it back and have their vengeance on kryta and orr(the same way the ebon vanguard in gw:en attack the blood legion homelands’ territory).If not for the treaty all human resources would still be wasted at ebonhawke which at the end the charr used to test their war machines (implying they weren’t even serious about it) and even if they won the battle there what would they do? Go back to the ruins of ascalon and get slaughtered by the mad spirits? And about Bonfaaz – he is revered as a hero because the searing he caused broke the wall to their original homeland and then Rurik kills him…

As for the searing being forgotten: does anybody else praise the mursaat for stopping the charr invasion in kryta? No.Does anybody still care about the cataclysm? No.The explanation for the second one can be used for ascalon too: it got “overlapped” by a bigger event (the foefire which is bad for all races since the ghost don’t make a differance).

Speaking of Gwen, she’s an excellent case in point. She’s still revered to this day by many of the descendants of Ascalon, particularly the citizens of Ebonhawke, but to the charr, she’s a nightmare figure, “Gwen the Goremonger”, someone that primuses use to frighten unruly cubs into obedience.

The only problem I have with Charr lore is that Charr still exist. The only good Charr is a DEAD Charr

It’s pretty obvious that Anet went to great lengths to humanize the Charr when they decided to make them a playable race. Making the human/charr conflict morally grey when previously it was black and white involved a lot of retconning, as well, and “we only saw one side of the story” or “it was all the Flame Legions fault” only goes so far when what was essentially presented back then was a bunch of LOTR Orcs with fur.

So, to people invested in GW1 (especially prophecies) it’s understandable that this kind of leads to cognitive dissonance as the themes presented in the past fly off in a completely different direction.

But then, if the Charr had remained what they were, nobody would have played them. So the humans had to take one for the team, so to speak.

I’ll admit, though, some of the revisions are completely absurd. Like the Gwen the Goremonger thing. Villainizing the orphaned, abused teenager to haphazardly make the Charr look good – who at that point were basically portrayed and merciless slavers and killers without a hint of moral ambiguity – was not the way to go, Anet.

I believe it’s entirely a matter of perspective. The charr seemed evil to us back then because, well they where the enemy weren’t they. If somebody is actively trying to kill me, burn my home, and eat my family, well I’m not going to see their side of things very clearly. You could really copy and paste that perspective and apply it to how the charr felt about humanity. We knew Gwen as a troubled and emotionally scarred young woman who just wanted a family and a home. The charr never met this girl. They met an enemy, and one who butchered hundreds of their friends. I mean it’s war, good and evil have nothing to do with it, but to those involved, the enemy is always evil. None of what Anet has presented to us is very hard to believe when taken in the context of “this is what the people in the game are saying, not us.”- Have you ever seen a culture at war portray the enemy as anything but a baby eating, house burning, devil worshiping monster? How may posters in Cold War America read “Commies: They’re not evil, just misunderstood!” ?

I’d agree with you if this were actual history, but I really doubt Anets writers were thinking about how the Charr felt when they wrote the plot of Prophecies. They were unspeaking, cultureless monsters until, at the bare minimum, Nightfall. That was my point.

In truth Arenanet really didnt need to do that much retconing if any at all to make the charr what they are now. We really knew very little about the charr except that they worshiped the Titans and fought with a brutal furocity. They committed attrocities, hated humans and took slaves.

The early charr were very two dementional when it comes to culture and social behaviours. We knew nearly nothing of their history and what we did know as very bias since it was from a purely invading human perspective. They were a monsterous race that we had conquered. I might point out that the conquest part was there from the very begining.

Arenanet has never portrayed humans as unflawed or not just as prone to horrible behaviour as real life humans. None of the races are presented as unflawed. Its clear in prophecies that humans came in and stomped on everyone else right from the start. Hell even in the original manual it state the humans came in and destroyed all the Forgottens efforts including waging war on the Forgotten themselves.

This virtue/vice applies to all their races, even the minor ones. The dredge have a tragic history, which has made them inherently xenophobic but the now want to apply the same oppresion to other races partially because as a culture thats how they learned the world works. This doesnt make all dredge like that or mean dredge are inherently unable to live in peace with other races. It means that the dredge in general see the rest of the world and how it works in a way that isnt neccesarily true.

The Flame Legion actually is a great way of them explaining the change in charr society. We know there was a clear leading shaman caste in Prophecies. To make this caste an oppresive ruling class made charr society at the time make sense.

Finally, Gwen wasnt demonised except by the charr. She was a soldier who hated the charr with a passion and killed hundreds of them. To the charr she was a monster. She wasnt villianised. Generally, most war heroes are considered monsters by their opponents. This is where differing and bias views come into it.

Personally I don’t have much of a problem with all the “how are we supposed to like the charr after all they did”… because it’s thoughts like that by the humans in game that are causing the central tensions between the races! I’d call that good story crafting.

Again, personally, I think it’s a matter of… you don’t need to like the charr. You just need to work with them, or you’re all going to die.

I feel the same :/

All this discussion. You know what I call this a result of?

Good writing.

Props.

Lurinna.4306:

I’ll admit, though, some of the revisions are completely absurd. Like the Gwen the Goremonger thing. Villainizing the orphaned, abused teenager to haphazardly make the Charr look good – who at that point were basically portrayed and merciless slavers and killers without a hint of moral ambiguity – was not the way to go, Anet.

I actually find Gwen the Goremonger as the least absurd thing in here. Regardless of how she got to that point, Gwen wound up as an utterly ruthless and brilliant military leader. She was completely remorseless when it came to the Charr and would gladly have commited genocide against them had she been able. She also seemed to take a bit too much pleasure from their pain and would not have been above torture.

As we the players only saw the beginning of her rule and already that much was taking shape, it’s not much of a stretch that over her long career she was celebrated in Ebon Hawke for committing glorious atrocities against the Charr.

I wouldn’t say this conversation is spurnned by “Good writing”. If anything, it’s a result of the dissonance in writing quality and it’s gradual improvement from the start of GW1 to now.

Also, the whole thing would probably be much better set up if it allowed the player to choose their opinion towards the whole issue in game (Give some anti-Charr dialogue options rather then “lets all be friends” stuff right off the bat, etc) rather then just dictating that the player characters personality. I mean, I’m not saying to let them be a seperatist or whatever, but rather just to give you the ability to say “I still don’t forgive the Charr, but I’ll work with them for the greater good.” Present the whole affair as less… Well, black and white.

And the Gwen thing is totally a matter of opinion, I suppose, but to me, it seemed like the writers trying too hard to oversell the “Maybe the humans were the evil ones” idea they decided to push for GW2, even if it makes sense logically under the new context.

Again, this isn’t actual history. Gwen didn’t turn out that way because of cause and effect. She turned out that way because a writer sat down and thought to her/himself, “I think we should make the beloved mascot character of our first game specifically regarded as a mass murderer.”

Let’s not forget the likes of Althea, either. Her fate was a pretty grim and tragic affair and is an excellent example of just how ruthless the charr were. I’m surprised that I’ve not yet found any mention of her in GW2.

The conflict isn’t certainly black and white, though the vast majority of atrocities were committed by the charr, not humans.

People are trying to get caught up in ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in a very long conflict involving different generations in a method of writing which is writes much more as ‘us’ and ‘them’.

There is nothing black and white about ANY of the races.

The way they chose to write things for the transition fo the charr to GW2 is that the bulk of the atrocities were committed by the the Flame Legions who are sadistic, and even commited those atrocities on their own people. The Flame Legion are still downright villianous.

Im not saying that charr are all innocent and nice kittens. They are anything but. They are an aggressive and hard race that balances that aggression with pragmatism and discipline. Charr society is also far from flawless. I think the Charr would seriously struggle adapting to a true peace. These things however are part of the Charr’s story and their development as a race.

However the sadistic brutality on the level we saw alot in GW1 seems more part of the Flame Legions identity which makes sense since their shaman culture evolved under the influence of the Titans, who were created from tortured souls themselves.

In short its hard to paint any race in GW2 with a single color. They just arent like that including the minor races.

Infact Im very impressed with how Arenanet managed the transition from GW1 to GW2 for the charr without decharring them.

Lurinna.4306:

Again, this isn’t actual history. Gwen didn’t turn out that way because of cause and effect. She turned out that way because a writer sat down and thought to her/himself, “I think we should make the beloved mascot character of our first game specifically regarded as a mass murderer.”

Plenty of people already regarded her that way….

I’m just baffled that humanity has become so meek, yet we’re meant to believe that the races’ greatest and most intriguing trait is that they never give up no matter the odds? I can accept the peace treaty, what I struggle to accept is how almost everyone who disagrees with it finds themselves thrown into villain territory. Not only that, but we’re forced to smile and agree with everything Jennah does.

Of course, those of us who role-play will make our own minds up regarding what our character thinks and feels about such things. The political intrigue in this setting is very well done, though I’d urge Arena Net to take it a step further and directly encourage players to take sides and even disagree with the decisions of major lore figures from time to time.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t work together, but it’d be nice if there was a lot more room for grudges to prosper.

You think Adelbern redeemed himself by fighting the Titans – an existential threat to his kingdom? Well, I disagree – even Pawala Joko fought against the Margonites, and he’s a psychotic lich. But even if Adelbern redeemed himself there, he re-condemned himself when, rather than surrender or retreat, he committed genocide himself with the Foefire, killing his entire kingdom and binding their tortured spirits to the land to continue his war for eternity. Adelbern is just as bad as Joko, and Rytlock was right to realize that there’s no negotiating or reasoning with such madness.

The rest of it comes down to the Flame Legion vs. the other Legions. Modern legions are not the Flame Legion, which caused the Searing. Other than that, the charr and humans are like Turkey and Greece – each sees the other as invading, ignorant and evil. Who’s right? Depends on which side you’re on. We got to see the humans’ side last time, now we’re getting a glimpse of both.

Gulbrandr.9047:

You think Adelbern redeemed himself by fighting the Titans – an existential threat to his kingdom? Well, I disagree – even Pawala Joko fought against the Margonites, and he’s a psychotic lich. But even if Adelbern redeemed himself there, he re-condemned himself when, rather than surrender or retreat, he committed genocide himself with the Foefire, killing his entire kingdom and binding their tortured spirits to the land to continue his war for eternity. Adelbern is just as bad as Joko, and Rytlock was right to realize that there’s no negotiating or reasoning with such madness.

Here’s the thing though, the Foefire didn’t happen as part of the Guild Wars story, it happened as part of the Guild Wars 2 story. Adelbern’s actions in Guild Wars paint a picture of a man struggling with his pride, slowly overcoming his personal demons and learning to cope with all that has happened and all that he’s lost. Everything he does is to protect the future of Ascalon and becoming refugees in Kryta was not in the best interest of Ascalon surviving. For a time, it even looked as though Ascalon would survive with the defeat of the titans.

Then we get to Guild Wars 2 and see that not only did Adelbern ultimately fail in his attempt to save Ascalon from destruction, in his final moments he betrayed his loyal subjects and condemned them all to an eternity of restless vengeance. While the Foefire certainly strikes me as something Adelbern could be capable of, it’s a lot like hearing that that one old friend from high school who used to smoke pot but quit was recently picked up in a cocaine bust. It’s believable, but goes against what you were led to believe the character of the person was.

All in all, I think that Anet could have done a much better job of making the charr sympathetic (without being so pushy about it) while not demonizing and kittenizing the characters we came to know and love in Guild Wars.

Well, that’s a disagreement with their story choices, not really a legitimate point for the actual lore discussion, though, since the lore is necessarily put in the context of their story choices. As for the Foefire being out of place… I don’t think so. What changed him? You see him at one point during the Titan quest, and he says the following:

“A long time have I fought for Ascalon. First as a soldier blessed by Balthazar, now as its king. Though I have survived one more battle, and I will see another day, it will not make me any more wise… only one day older. I have lost all that a man can lose. All that I have left is this antiquated set of armor and the remains of this tattered kingdom. I thank you for your help today. Rurik would have been very proud of all you have accomplished.”

“I have lost all a man can lose”? That sounds like someone depressed, with literally nothing left to live for. Someone who’d consider doing something rash — terminally rash — just to spite his lifelong enemies.

Now, for the more interesting question: Why did Glint send you to save his life? Did she need the Foefire to happen, in the same way she needed you to wipe out the Mursaat before destroying the Titan threat, despite the Mursaat being the most powerful enemies of the Titans out there?

Garenthal.1480:

I’m just baffled that humanity has become so meek, yet we’re meant to believe that the races’ greatest and most intriguing trait is that they never give up no matter the odds? I can accept the peace treaty, what I struggle to accept is how almost everyone who disagrees with it finds themselves thrown into villain territory. Not only that, but we’re forced to smile and agree with everything Jennah does.

Of course, those of us who role-play will make our own minds up regarding what our character thinks and feels about such things. The political intrigue in this setting is very well done, though I’d urge Arena Net to take it a step further and directly encourage players to take sides and even disagree with the decisions of major lore figures from time to time.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t work together, but it’d be nice if there was a lot more room for grudges to prosper.

The political intrigue in among the humans is very polar. The Legate Minister vs the Queen. On the minister’s side it appears there are connections to bandits and possibly worse as well. The Queen on the other hand, seems focused on the welfare of Kryta and dealing with the Elder Dragons.

Note, that about the peace treaty, we do see voices of people unconvinced with it but who accept that its happened. You also see people unconvinced it will last or that the other side is trustworthy. The Seperatists however are an example of people who cant let go of their hatred and it directs them to more extreme methods.

By GW2 the debate over if they should have a treaty is over. The truce has been in effect for a while already. With the benifits of the treaty starting to show you start to see people becoming more convinced by the treaty’s benifits. Thats the reason that groups like the Seperatists are becoming more extreme. They are growing desperate.

Note that humans other great trait is their ability to adapt. Ebonhawke is actually getting quite a bit out of the treaty. You see them setting up the groundwork for settlements across the Feilds of Ruin. The Charr are giving up captured land. Considering Ebonhawke has had no real gains in over a century you could see that as somewhat of a victory.

I wont disagree that compared to the other races the humans seem very passive this time round but in the charr/human relations they did alright.

Gulbrandr.9047:

Well, that’s a disagreement with their story choices, not really a legitimate point for the actual lore discussion, though, since the lore is necessarily put in the context of their story choices. As for the Foefire being out of place… I don’t think so. What changed him? You see him at one point during the Titan quest, and he says the following:

“A long time have I fought for Ascalon. First as a soldier blessed by Balthazar, now as its king. Though I have survived one more battle, and I will see another day, it will not make me any more wise… only one day older. I have lost all that a man can lose. All that I have left is this antiquated set of armor and the remains of this tattered kingdom. I thank you for your help today. Rurik would have been very proud of all you have accomplished.”

“I have lost all a man can lose”? That sounds like someone depressed, with literally nothing left to live for. Someone who’d consider doing something rash — terminally rash — just to spite his lifelong enemies.

Now, for the more interesting question: Why did Glint send you to save his life? Did she need the Foefire to happen, in the same way she needed you to wipe out the Mursaat before destroying the Titan threat, despite the Mursaat being the most powerful enemies of the Titans out there?

I think he discovered that he had one more thing to lose.

As for Glint quite possibly. The Foefire did force the charr to settle with what they have and give them something to fight.

I always find the argument that the Charr were just taking back the land that was taken from them hilarious considering the whole story of Guild Wars 2 is killing what are probably the first 5 organisms that existed on the planet.

I’m still not even sure why the charr were so intent on getting Ascalon back, considering they were willing to destroy it almost entirely. It’s a shame Ascalon didn’t remain a ruined, barren wasteland so that the charr didn’t actually suffered themselves for resorting to the Searing.

Then the Foefire came and the charr still managed to hold on to Ascalon. Why? How? It seems as though the numbers of the charr are endless, considering they should be just as endangered as species as humans are in Tyria. The whole peace treaty would work much better if both races were shown to be on the brink of extinction.

I have been saying this about the Charr for awhile now, it good to finally have somebody else agree with me instead of all the stupid reasons that normally got thrown back.

Quite frankly the Charr of gone straight over to Mary Sue territory now. As you have pointed out already nothing ever goes wrong for them.

-They used what was effectively an extra powerful version of a nuclear bomb to commit genocide on another species and by the time we see them back in the land it has recovered from all its damage. That said magic bomb might have been powered by Dragon energy and they used it without being corrupted.

-They sent massive armies to conquer Kryta and Orr and both were completely wiped out and there remaining army fought for years against Ascalon until eventually a large part of it was wiped out by the foefire and thrown in there is a massive civil war where the remnants of one side still linger to this day. Yet they are clearly the strongest/most powerful nation. While the 3 Centaurs we left alive in Prophecies have manged to regroup and push Humans back to pretty much the wall of every town they have.

-An Elder Dragon was asleep in the middle of their homelands and when he woke up he decided to fly off and park himself next to EbonHawke.

There were also some terribly bad decisions made in the Storytelling between EOTN and GW2. It seemed like they were going the right way in EOTN by blaming everything on the Flame Legion and showing rebel Charr but what do we get between then and the now good amazing bestest ever race of GW2? The bonus mission pack that shows Charr force children into gladiator fights and the movement of the world where the Charr rebels you freed and helped fight the Flame Legion eventually win and celebrate by carrying on murdering all the humans. Eventually leading to GW2 were they romanticise the violent natures of the Charr and come up with the stupid out of character foe fire and then act like that killing the invading Charr is worse then inflicting mass Genocide on civilian men women and children.

Garenthal.1480:

I’m still not even sure why the charr were so intent on getting Ascalon back, considering they were willing to destroy it almost entirely. It’s a shame Ascalon didn’t remain a ruined, barren wasteland so that the charr didn’t actually suffered themselves for resorting to the Searing.

Then the Foefire came and the charr still managed to hold on to Ascalon. Why? How? It seems as though the numbers of the charr are endless, considering they should be just as endangered as species as humans are in Tyria. The whole peace treaty would work much better if both races were shown to be on the brink of extinction.

Yes we are. A charr shaman tells us that the Titans spent two hundred years shaping the charr for the invasion. Curiously thoug the Titans target was Orr, not Ascalon. For the Titans, Ascalon was just in the way.

The charr arent endless but they had alot more territory to the north and the east that supported their taking of Ascalon. The other two Legions have their own lands and Citadels elsewhere. As for the Foefire and the ghosts, although they couldnt perminantly defeat the ghosts, the ghost consentrated mostly around Ascalon city. They also lacked much coordination in general. This put the charr in a position where they could manage the ghosts.

The charr never took the beating humanity did. The Foefire’s damage was in its legacy more than anything. The charr it killed to start with were only those inside the city. Its real effect was to deny the charr total victory and condemn them to centuries of conflict to hold the lands they had taken.

@op it seems like you just disregard the events that happen in the books/ after gw1

@the notion that the charr are "Yet they are clearly the strongest/most powerful nation. " no just no the asura are way more technologically advanced then the charr and would have taken over the entire world if they didn’t have so much inter fighting between them selves. it even says it in there description on the character creation screen. “These alchemagical inventors may be short in stature, but they’re intellectual giants. Among the asura, it’s not the strong who survive, but the clever. Other races believe they should rule by virtue of their power and strength, but they’re deluding themselves. In due time, all will serve the asura.”

Lurinna.4306:

I’ll admit, though, some of the revisions are completely absurd. Like the Gwen the Goremonger thing. Villainizing the orphaned, abused teenager to haphazardly make the Charr look good – who at that point were basically portrayed and merciless slavers and killers without a hint of moral ambiguity – was not the way to go, Anet.

I was actually a bit baffled upon reading this. Did you actually play GW:EN? Because I played that and Prophecies, and the cutscenes with Gwen interacting with charr (especially Pyre)? Yeah, I was kind of weirded out by how utterly hateful and rage-filled she was. “Gwen the Goremonger” wasn’t absurd, it was completely appropriate.

By that same token, Adelburn wasn’t a good guy. Sure, he wasn’t completely evil, but he definitely wasn’t someone that you should be rooting for. The entire point of the story in Post-Searing Ascalon is that Adelburn is too stubborn to get help from the Krytans and too stubborn to evacuate from Ascalon, both choices that end up with the result of him dooming his entire nation to die at the hands of an enemy he can’t hope to beat. Yes, he mentions regretting it when you defend him from the Titans, but that’s just about the only positive thing we see from him the entire time during Guild Wars. He’s not exactly good in Guild Wars Beyond either, if you played any of the stuff in War in Kryta.

Gwen’s hate and rage made a hell of a lot of sense if you understood what she had been through. The charr that held her were brutal in an extreme fashion. The only reason she escaped was because they threw her in a pit with a beast they expected to rip her apart for their entertainment and she managed to kill it and escape into the ruins.

Gwen’s hate made alot of sense. It was probably one of the things that contibuted to her surviving her ordial. For that reason I wasnt really weirded out. If anything I think Arenanet handled Gwen’s story and her coming to terms with her past brilliantly.

Jhu.3965:

Hey Gurt, are you an American?

Do you hate the British for all the horrific atrocities they commited? How about the Native Americans? Look at all the people they scalped, settlements they burned and destroyed.

How about the Mexicans? We were at war with them even more recently. Can you believe we have normal diplomatic talks with them after they tried to wipe out the Alamo?

Oh? You don’t? Because all that happened a long time ago? It happened more recently than the Searing and all that though!

Two hundred and fifty years is longer than the United States of American has even existed man. It’s a very, very, very long time. The events of GW1 at this point in Tyria are probably as much myth as historical fact. You expecting people to still be mad about the charr’s actions, even expecting an accurate idea of what kind of person Adlebern was, is totally unrealistic and silly.

This is one of the reasons why it’s so weird that the charr cared so much about taking back their homeland. Sure, the charr may have taken it back 250 years ago, but the humans held on to it for about 1200 years. If 1200 years is a reasonable time frame to act on taking back your land for the charr, then 250 should be more than reasonable for humans.

Lutinz.6915

Gwen’s hate and rage made a hell of a lot of sense if you understood what she had been through. The charr that held her were brutal in an extreme fashion. The only reason she escaped was because they threw her in a pit with a beast they expected to rip her apart for their entertainment and she managed to kill it and escape into the ruins.
Gwen’s hate made alot of sense. It was probably one of the things that contibuted to her surviving her ordial. For that reason I wasnt really weirded out. If anything I think Arenanet handled Gwen’s story and her coming to terms with her past brilliantly.

This. It doesn’t make much sense for Gwen to come to terms with who she is and realize that not all charr are the same and then go set herself up as some brutal charr killing machine after Guild Wars ends. Gwen’s story is about letting go of what you want and doing what’s best for everyone, so why wouldn’t she have push for peace talks with the new charr leadership; the one she helped create?

If you ask me the whole charr-human story would have been much better with Adelbern dying in the field, Duke Barradin becoming King Barradin, Gwen pushing the new King for peace talks, and humans and charr entering into a peace treaty some 10 to 20 years after the events of GW:EN. Then you can make the charr more sympathetic by giving the players more insight into their actions; an example: charr ate human prisoners because the strictly carnivorous charr were starving to death from overpopulation, they ate their own prisoners too.

Jhu.3965:

Hey Gurt, are you an American?

Do you hate the British for all the horrific atrocities they commited? How about the Native Americans? Look at all the people they scalped, settlements they burned and destroyed.

How about the Mexicans? We were at war with them even more recently. Can you believe we have normal diplomatic talks with them after they tried to wipe out the Alamo?

Oh? You don’t? Because all that happened a long time ago? It happened more recently than the Searing and all that though!

Two hundred and fifty years is longer than the United States of American has even existed man. It’s a very, very, very long time. The events of GW1 at this point in Tyria are probably as much myth as historical fact. You expecting people to still be mad about the charr’s actions, even expecting an accurate idea of what kind of person Adlebern was, is totally unrealistic and silly.

The difference being that Charr carried on doing it until just before the game started.

Gurt.9368:

This. It doesn’t make much sense for Gwen to come to terms with who she is and realize that not all charr are the same and then go set herself up as some brutal charr killing machine after Guild Wars ends. Gwen’s story is about letting go of what you want and doing what’s best for everyone, so why wouldn’t she have push for peace talks with the new charr leadership; the one she helped create?

Gwen never realized that not all charr are the same. That wasn’t the point of the ending of the Ebon Vanguard story arc. The point was she got over her fear of the charr, but she never stopped hating them for a moment. It was quite obviously clear that she still hated Pyre by the end, even if she reached a point where she wouldn’t have tried to kill him on sight if the PC wasn’t around.

In short, Gwen isn’t a good guy. I’m not saying that her hatred and rage aren’t understandable, because they are. That doesn’t mean that it’s good.

Personally, I file Gwen in the same spot as Koss, Logan, and Queen Jennah: characters that I think I’m supposed to like, and that the writers clearly want me to like, but have such poor executions that they’re simply thoroughly unlikable.

It’s the unfortunate consequence that comes from heavy handed attempts to make a former enemy race into an ally. We’re constantly being shown and told how awesome the charr are, how they reclaimed Ascalon for themselves and how technologically advanced they are – second only to the Asuran race.

…and what does humanity get? A huge story arc about how awesome Queen Jennah is for supporting a peace treaty that makes much of the races’ past redundant. As someone else pointed out, it makes no sense for the charr to want to reclaim Ascalon for 1200 years…only for the humans to largely forget about Orr and Ascalon within the space of a year.

It feels forced, all for the sake of having the token beast race become playable when logic dictates that if this game had factions, they’d still be the enemy. Had they too been severely weakened and in a proper stalemate, it’d be much more manageable.

Garenthal.1480:

…and what does humanity get? A huge story arc about how awesome Queen Jennah is for supporting a peace treaty that makes much of the races’ past redundant. As someone else pointed out, it makes no sense for the charr to want to reclaim Ascalon for 1200 years…only for the humans to largely forget about Orr and Ascalon within the space of a year.

They haven’t forgotten. All it takes is one trip to Ebonhawke to know that they haven’t forgotten. Ever tried talking down the separatist sympathizers in Ebonhawke as a charr character? Oh man, they haven’t forgotten. For that matter, talk to random NPCs in the Ascalon Settlement as a charr, that’s good too.

There’s two reasons for this perception, though. For one, “humanity” hasn’t existed as a unified whole for a long, long time. In the first Guild Wars, Kryta and Ascalon were just coming out of a long war and still didn’t trust each other at all. I’d be rather surprised if the humans in Kryta cared about Ascalon at all. (Keep in mind, Kryta didn’t have the same lengthy war with the charr that Ascalon did, so there wasn’t as much hatred to overcome.)

Second, you have to keep in mind the story that they’re trying to tell with humans in this game. They’re a dying race, a race that once had great power across all of Tyria and now has much of their holdings shrunken and in ruin. It’s not that humans have forgotten, it’s that they can’t continue to fight as they have and still survive.

Why wouldn’t Kryta be concerned for Ascalon, especially if the charr can be concerned about Ascalon for over a thousand years after losing it themselves? Orr, too, should have played a much bigger part than it actually does currently. It’s the place where the Six first entered Tyria and the human race as a whole is meant to be deeply religious. The fact that it was the charr that contributed heavily to Orr’s destruction should be a pretty major plot point. Instead, like Ascalon we get the silly plot device of a corrupted/desperate human destroying their beloved nations.

The flavour text is a nice touch, but we need more than just flavour text. We need some action and memorable characters that aren’t turned into convenient villains the moment they disagree with Jennah or Logan.

Because Ascalon and Kryta are traditionally enemies, not allies. You are again presuming that humanity was in some way unified, when that simply wasn’t the case before. Why would Kryta care about Ascalon at all when Ascalon was never theirs to begin with?

Grakor.3450:

Because Ascalon and Kryta are traditionally enemies, not allies. You are again presuming that humanity was in some way unified, when that simply wasn’t the case before. Why would Kryta care about Ascalon at all when Ascalon was never theirs to begin with?

Because judging by the racial appearance of the people, I’d estimate that about 75% to 90% of modern day Krytans are of Ascalonian descent.

Gurt.9368:

Grakor.3450:

Because Ascalon and Kryta are traditionally enemies, not allies. You are again presuming that humanity was in some way unified, when that simply wasn’t the case before. Why would Kryta care about Ascalon at all when Ascalon was never theirs to begin with?

Because judging by the racial appearance of the people, I’d estimate that about 75% to 90% of modern day Krytans are of Ascalonian descent.

They look like it, so it must be like that.

Let´s see:
Situation in GW1 was that human nations had prettymuch been fighting eachother for a goodwhile, or more precisely guild had been. There was no love spared between Kryta and Ascalon.
Ascalonians who came to Kryta were refugees and there wasn´t too many of them, deducing from the size of the settlement they had, and from how it exapanded.
First generation after their arrival there propably wasn´t too much of realtionships between Krytans and Ascalonians, just look at any of the modern conflicts and the refugees they leave or former adversaries (Usa vs indians?)
Kryta at the time Ascalonians arrived was faring well, had strong population and despite civilwar that soon erupted still remained on better grounds than Ascalon.
Refugees after the initial wave that Rurik lead would´ve propably been sacrce since the way was dangerous, and big part of the population willing to leave had already done so.

So how exactly did that smallish group of refugees take over a nation?