Guild Wars 2

Why do people keep saying that the Charr are the bad guys because they caused the Searing which drove the humans out of Ascalon and caused Adelbern to start the Foefire? Is everyone forgetting or just not know that the Charr originally were the ones that settled Ascalon and it was the humans that originally drove the Charr out of Ascalon. In GW1 all the Charr were doing was retaking the land that was theirs before the humans.

while you are right in theory you must remember that the searing was an event that killed thousands if not tens of thousands of ascalonian humans, as well as permanently scarring the land to the point where it may never be as prosperous as it once was, not to mention the attempted invasion of kryta which was not originally part of charr territory. whether or not ascalon (or whatever the charr called the land before the humans took it over) was originally charr territory is a moot point. the charr are still responsible for the largest number of war casualties in recorded tyrian history not including wars waged against elder dragons past or present.

The charr were going a bit farther than “just retaking their land”. Beyond the fantasy equivalent of using a WMD, GW2 also glosses over the fact that charr enslaved humans, cooked prisoners alive both for sacrifice and for eating, and enjoyed throwing them into pits unarmed against giant devourers. By comparison the Ascalonians’ approach of killing them like animals and occasionally wearing their skins seems almost justified. Neither side was entirely in the right, but the charr were more in the wrong than the humans- in this conflict, at least.

Incidentally, the initial population of Ascalon, or at least the earliest one we know of, was the grawl, whom the charr conquered, enslaved, then displaced.

The Charr also attacked Orr and Kryta. Which was not their land.
I think it was more about just killing humans rather than regaining land but that’s just me.

I think the Charr’s actions have been glorified a lot. As Aaron already pointed out, they did many horrible things and it wasn’t just some noble struggle to regain their homeland. It was one big slaughter, torture, genocide and cannibal fest. And if it was really just about regaining their land, then why attack the other human nations as wel?

BUT that was then. I like the present day Charr, they are definitely the good guys. All the main races are. Except maybe the plants. ^^

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

The Charr also attacked Orr and Kryta. Which was not their land.
I think it was more about just killing humans rather than regaining land but that’s just me.

I think the Charr’s actions have been glorified a lot. As Aaron already pointed out, they did many horrible things and it wasn’t just some noble struggle to regain their homeland. It was one big slaughter, torture, genocide and cannibal fest. And if it was really just about regaining their land, then why attack the other human nations as wel?

BUT that was then. I like the present day Charr, they are definitely the good guys. All the main races are. Except maybe the plants. ^^

While I’m generally your opinion, I don’t really get, why they were canibals.. they ate humans, but they are a different species, so this wouldn’t be cannibalism. Did they also eat other charr and I overlooked it?

Super destructive, super militaristic society. Logically speaking, it wouldn’t work. and its pretty antithetical to us in modern western society.

The Charr consume. There are no Charr naturalists. No Charr ecologists. etc.
they can only work as a Nomadic society. Like the Huns or Mongols in reality. but again, this requires more or less unlimited resources.
Realistically speaking, the Charr would not have enough farmland, hunting grounds, etc to actually feed themselves.

Little to no art or culture.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

And if it was really just about regaining their land, then why attack the other human nations as wel?

While I don’t agree with the mentality, from a military, strategic point of view, it makes sense.

To Charr, Humans are Humans. Not Orrians, or Ascalonians or Canthans. Humans. Who’s to say, Charr may be thinking, that Kryta will not seek retribution and try to advance on Char-owned Ascalon after the Searing? So they continue and wage war on the remaining human kingdoms.

But that’s giving them a lot of rationality, and that’s something Charr lacked 250+ years ago. Not because they never had it, but because they were being driven by Flame Legion and Flame Legion were getting orders from their “gods”: the Titans, which were spurred by Abaddon, who wanted to sow chaos. So that was basically the reason they attacked.

Oreithyia.3064:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

The Charr also attacked Orr and Kryta. Which was not their land.
I think it was more about just killing humans rather than regaining land but that’s just me.

I think the Charr’s actions have been glorified a lot. As Aaron already pointed out, they did many horrible things and it wasn’t just some noble struggle to regain their homeland. It was one big slaughter, torture, genocide and cannibal fest. And if it was really just about regaining their land, then why attack the other human nations as wel?

BUT that was then. I like the present day Charr, they are definitely the good guys. All the main races are. Except maybe the plants. ^^

While I’m generally your opinion, I don’t really get, why they were canibals.. they ate humans, but they are a different species, so this wouldn’t be cannibalism. Did they also eat other charr and I overlooked it?

You are right it doesn’t really count as cannibalism since humans and charr are different races. But I couldn’t really find another term for eating sentient lifeforms of other races.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

The charr were going a bit farther than “just retaking their land”. Beyond the fantasy equivalent of using a WMD

You mean like how America dropped a couple of nukes on Japan?! Even a cursory review of history shows that any horrible act can easily be glossed over.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

GW2 also glosses over the fact that charr enslaved humans, cooked prisoners alive both for sacrifice and for eating, and enjoyed throwing them into pits unarmed against giant devourers.

Except for the giant scorpions you’re basically in part or in whole describing human history right now.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

By comparison the Ascalonians’ approach of killing them like animals and occasionally wearing their skins seems almost justified. 4

I guess we have a different moral system. I don’t believe that that the immoral actions of others justifies me to similar or equivalent immoral actions.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

The Charr also attacked Orr and Kryta. Which was not their land.

Um… the best defense is a good offence?

Casia.4281:

The Charr consume. There are no Charr naturalists. No Charr ecologists. etc.
they can only work as a Nomadic society. Like the Huns or Mongols in reality. but again, this requires more or less unlimited resources.
Realistically speaking, the Charr would not have enough farmland, hunting grounds, etc to actually feed themselves.

Little to no art or culture.

Bah who needs naturalists and ecologists anyway.
Actually there are plenty of Charr farmers, given that they’re giant cats so primarily or exclusively carnivores (not sure about their biology) it primarily takes the form of livestock farming.
As for Charr culture https://youtu.be/FXaTcZWBfC0?t=53s, they’ve got plenty :P

@Cure I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at… I agree with the historical comparisons, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say with them. Are you arguing that because real world humans did it it’s not bad? Or that it means we’re hypocrites for condemning it? Either way I emphatically disagree, but I would like to know your intent before I attack your position.

People tend to forget that the charr were NOT the original settlers of Ascalon.

It’s a little obscure piece of lore, but charr conquered Ascalon twice. Once before humanity arrived, and once after. The original inhabitants of Ascalon is implied to have been the dwarves – and the grawl.

Relevant links:

• Lore on Kathandrax Steelsoul, a dwarf who fought back the charr in what’s now called the Blood Legion Homelands, he was buried where he died in an elaborate catacombs.
• There’s a line here indicating the charr’s general direction of invasion that ended with Ascalon: north, west, then south. It’s the second paragraph.
• Source that the charr enslaved the grawl when they conquered Ascalon the first time.

Having conquered a land once, enslaving the local primitive people there, and being pushed back does not justify nearly destroying the ecosystem in order to take it back from another set of invaders (the ones who pushed them back).

There’s obviously the assaults on Kryta and Orr – the intent to cause a Searing in Orr even – and the enslavement. But the OP’s argument of “it was their land first” doesn’t even fly even ignoring everything else.

Charr are hardly “the good guys” – which is why I like playing them, because they’re not good per se, but they’re not evil either. If using the old D&D alignment, most of the race would probably fall under true neutral. But Anet has troubles with storytelling, especially in GW2, in regards of depicting good and evil forces as anything but the extreme of those concepts (that would still make the game rated T at least).

CureForLiving.5360:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

The Charr also attacked Orr and Kryta. Which was not their land.

Um… the best defense is a good offence?

How is that relevant to attacking nations that were not originally involved in the conflict at all?

Konig Des Todes.2086:

People tend to forget that the charr were NOT the original settlers of Ascalon.

It’s a little obscure piece of lore, but charr conquered Ascalon twice. Once before humanity arrived, and once after. The original inhabitants of Ascalon is implied to have been the dwarves – and the grawl.

Relevant links:

• Lore on Kathandrax Steelsoul, a dwarf who fought back the charr in what’s now called the Blood Legion Homelands, he was buried where he died in an elaborate catacombs.
• There’s a line here indicating the charr’s general direction of invasion that ended with Ascalon: north, west, then south. It’s the second paragraph.
• Source that the charr enslaved the grawl when they conquered Ascalon the first time.

Holy cow that is awesome. Saving this.
Perfect to use everytime the “charr owned it first” argument pops up.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

Holy cow that is awesome. Saving this.
Perfect to use everytime the “charr owned it first” argument pops up.

Easy to counter. “Charr were here first”, “humans are invaders in Tyria as continent and probably in Tyria as world” and “humans kicked charr out, then charr kicked out humans”.

Rednik.3809:

Easy to counter. “Charr were here first”, “humans are invaders in Tyria as continent and probably in Tyria as world” and “humans kicked charr out, then charr kicked out humans”.

Humans are not to blame for the fact their distant ancestors might have been dumped here by the six gods.

And the argument still stands. Charr kicked out original inhabitants, got kicked out themselves, reconquered it. Still does not make them the original inhabitants and more deserving of Ascalon than any other race except for the Grawl or Dwarfs.

The only right the Charr have on Ascalon is right by conquest. They conquered it so they own it. But the charr think it’s their birthright because they believe they were the original inhabitants. That’s simply not the case.

I’m not saying the Charr don’t belong in Ascalon, they can have it as far as I’m concerned. All I am saying is they don’t deserve Ascalon simply because they were there first.

Fun topic, but honestly be the good or the bad guys depends entirely of the point of view, yes Charr committed a lot of barbaric acts against humans during the Searing and follow invasions to the Orr and Kryta. However, we can’t blame Charr to kill or slaughter humans at the same way we don’t blame us for kill animals to survive. The problems that we are giving “humanity” to a total different race, that don’t follow human’s moral and don’t have to. Overall every race look for their own interest , actually is weird that charr decide to just rewrite their entirely society just to become more diplomatic and “polite” we the other races, let face it, they are one of the most powerful races right now.

Casia.4281:

Super destructive, super militaristic society. Logically speaking, it wouldn’t work. and its pretty antithetical to us in modern western society.

The Charr consume. There are no Charr naturalists. No Charr ecologists. etc.
they can only work as a Nomadic society. Like the Huns or Mongols in reality. but again, this requires more or less unlimited resources.
Realistically speaking, the Charr would not have enough farmland, hunting grounds, etc to actually feed themselves.

Little to no art or culture.

That is why is my favorite race, charr are based half on the Roman empire and half on The Mongols . The Mongols was nomadic society compose of different tribes with different leaders and interest, that was until the Great Khan(Khan-Ur lol) united all the tribes. They was fierce warriors and really good horsemen , eventually, Mongols became a powerful nation why a powerful desire to expand and conquest others. Similar to the Romans, a strongly militarized society, with a strict set of ranks and duties, and a strong desire to conquest every nation around they to the point that they became one the biggest empires that ever exited in the world. The reason why they eventually perish was big divisions in the empire . Also, let say that charr have no art at all, which is debatable since art is way of expression and charr have a really unique architecture that can be considered art, also there is some basic jewelry , horn ornaments, special carves on weapons and armor that can be considered art but again is debatable, and they have culture, culture is a set of trait that define a society , hence, they had .

@Death Scythe: I think it’s because of a mix of not having a huge chip on their collective shoulders any more, overthrowing the Flame Legion, and realising that in the long run they’re better having the other races as friends… or at least, not enemies which, while weaker individually, will likely ally and beat them collectively if the charr remain on a war footing with everyone indefinitely. Being able to remain at relative peace with the norn probably started that, and I expect it was not lost on the post-rebellion leaders of the charr – particularly those that know Pyre’s true story – that while humans can be aggressive to other races, they’re also quite capable of forming alliances to realise their goal.

A charm offensive on the part of the charr in order to establish peaceful relations with the norn, asura and other races is essentially a protection against humans being able to persuade everyone else that the charr were the Great Enemy that everyone needed to unite against.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Charr are hardly “the good guys” – which is why I like playing them, because they’re not good per se, but they’re not evil either. If using the old D&D alignment, most of the race would probably fall under true neutral. But Anet has troubles with storytelling, especially in GW2, in regards of depicting good and evil forces as anything but the extreme of those concepts (that would still make the game rated T at least).

Lawful neutral.

Another consideration that often gets missed is the time consideration. At the time of the Searing, humans had been in possession of Ascalon for nearly twelve centuries… probably longer than the charr ever had it themselves. There is a certain point at which your war to retake lost territory is simply slaughtering people who had nothing to do with the original conflict and who have made their homes their for generations.

The real world is littered with territories for which a historical claim could be made by one or more nations apart from the nation that currently holds that territory. Nobody would consider a nation to be justified for waging a war of aggression to seize territory that they held twelve decades ago, let alone twelve centuries.

I’d also point out that we still haven’t heard Doric’s side of the story. The humans of Ascalon had an old alliance with the dwarves (known to have fought the charr) and shared gods with the Forgotten (also known to have fought the charr before the human invasion of Ascalon). Doric’s invasion may well have been motivated by seeking to help allies.

PS: Also, on another point that came up:

The charr do have their ecologists. They’re probably less environmentally focused than anyone except the asura, but there are a few events scattered around the place where the Flame Legion are looking to poison a location and the non-Flame Charr are looking to keep it in decent condition.

draxynnic.3719:

I think it’s because of a mix of not having a huge chip on their collective shoulders any more, overthrowing the Flame Legion, and realising that in the long run they’re better having the other races as friends… or at least, not enemies which, while weaker individually, will likely ally and beat them collectively if the charr remain on a war footing with everyone indefinitely. Being able to remain at relative peace with the norn probably started that, and I expect it was not lost on the post-rebellion leaders of the charr – particularly those that know Pyre’s true story – that while humans can be aggressive to other races, they’re also quite capable of forming alliances to realise their goal.

A charm offensive on the part of the charr in order to establish peaceful relations with the norn, asura and other races is essentially a protection against humans being able to persuade everyone else that the charr were the Great Enemy that everyone needed to unite against.

.

Yes, you right sir, that make sense , and is strategically is a smart move. Norn and Asura will be a tough opponents on two different aspect , Technology and Combat Strength, even if Norn are weaker in number and lack on organization , but they are awful good soldiers . On the other hands, Asura have no defined army, and weak physical strength (debatable ), but they have best technology and far more analytical intelligence , would be tough indeed trying to battle against that sort of alliance .

I’m not disagreeing with anyone that says the Charr were worse, but I am just going to point out that we had Charr armor in GW1. I mean, enslaving a guy is one thing, but imagine the look on Pyre Fierceshot’s face when he had to team up with a warrior that may have been wearing one of his cousins grossly draped across his body.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Warrior_Charr_Hide_armor

Aaron Ansari.1604:

@Cure I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at… I agree with the historical comparisons, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say with them. Are you arguing that because real world humans did it it’s not bad? Or that it means we’re hypocrites for condemning it? Either way I emphatically disagree, but I would like to know your intent before I attack your position.

No I’m say real world humans have done horrible things in the past but we don’t hold it against them (in general). Because the Charr have done bad things in the past it’s more than possible that people would get over it.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

CureForLiving.5360:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

The Charr also attacked Orr and Kryta. Which was not their land.

Um… the best defense is a good offence?

How is that relevant to attacking nations that were not originally involved in the conflict at all?

Because they would most likely have gotten involved.

CureForLiving.5360:

Aaron Ansari.1604:

@Cure I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at… I agree with the historical comparisons, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say with them. Are you arguing that because real world humans did it it’s not bad? Or that it means we’re hypocrites for condemning it? Either way I emphatically disagree, but I would like to know your intent before I attack your position.

No I’m say real world humans have done horrible things in the past but we don’t hold it against them (in general). Because the Charr have done bad things in the past it’s more than possible that people would get over it.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

CureForLiving.5360:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

The Charr also attacked Orr and Kryta. Which was not their land.

Um… the best defense is a good offence?

How is that relevant to attacking nations that were not originally involved in the conflict at all?

Because they would most likely have gotten involved.

Why would they, the human nations hated eachother. The game is even named after the wars they fought.

Besides wiping out entire nations because of an assumption is quite evil imo.

CureForLiving.5360:

Aaron Ansari.1604:

@Cure I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at… I agree with the historical comparisons, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say with them. Are you arguing that because real world humans did it it’s not bad? Or that it means we’re hypocrites for condemning it? Either way I emphatically disagree, but I would like to know your intent before I attack your position.

No I’m say real world humans have done horrible things in the past but we don’t hold it against them (in general). Because the Charr have done bad things in the past it’s more than possible that people would get over it.

Well, I do certainly agree that the charr of GW2 should not be judged for their ancestors’ actions. My points were directed towards the assertion that the charr of GW1 were the good guys. You’re right, though, that the distinction should be made.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

CureForLiving.5360:

Aaron Ansari.1604:

@Cure I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at… I agree with the historical comparisons, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say with them. Are you arguing that because real world humans did it it’s not bad? Or that it means we’re hypocrites for condemning it? Either way I emphatically disagree, but I would like to know your intent before I attack your position.

No I’m say real world humans have done horrible things in the past but we don’t hold it against them (in general). Because the Charr have done bad things in the past it’s more than possible that people would get over it.

Well, I do certainly agree that the charr of GW2 should not be judged for their ancestors’ actions. My points were directed towards the assertion that the charr of GW1 were the good guys. You’re right, though, that the distinction should be made.

Oh no they were pretty bad in GW1, there’s little doubt about that. We can explain why they were so bad (those pesky Shamans, evil Titans, it was at one point their land etc.) but reasons don’t mean morally right.

The Charr in GW1 were alot like the Centaurs are in GW2.

Tread.9208:

The Charr in GW1 were alot like the Centaurs are in GW2.

On the surface, yeah, but it goes a bit deeper. For instance, we see them both take slaves, but I don’t think there’s any references to centaurs eating humans, and maybe not even to sacrificing them. GW2 centaurs are wanna-be GW1 charr.

Death Scythe.9738:

Yes, you right sir, that make sense , and is strategically is a smart move. Norn and Asura will be a tough opponents on two different aspect , Technology and Combat Strength, even if Norn are weaker in number and lack on organization , but they are awful good soldiers . On the other hands, Asura have no defined army, and weak physical strength (debatable ), but they have best technology and far more analytical intelligence , would be tough indeed trying to battle against that sort of alliance .

Worse, from the charr’s perspective, the asura and norn would be able to hang their specialties on the solid backbone of an organised human army. You’d have the humans ‘holding the line’, supported by asura weirdness and norn special forces.

Basically, it’d be like the Pact, with less technology, but having the entire power of at least one nation behind it instead of what were effectively paramilitaries. And if this happened before Zhaitan rose when Kryta was more powerful than it is now…

There is a difference between being the first, and being there before humans imo.
All I’m saying is, merely being there before humans doesn’t justify anything. They conquered the land, just as the charr did.

And didn’t the forgotten simply retreat to the crystal desert as humans arrived? I don’t recall there ever being an all out war between humans and forgotten. I could be wrong though.

I think what we were told is the Forgotten withdrew specifically so there wouldn’t be a war. Mind you, the source (the Prophecies manual) has been unreliable in the past… but it’s also the only source we’ve got.

Yeah, that was also my impression. They withdrew into the Desert when Humans started to thrive.

The good guys, the bad guys…

Why would they be the “good guys”? Any profit from it?

Wish people would stop splitting things into “obvious evil” and “obvious good”. It flattens every story.

It isn’t “people”. It’s the writers. The dichotomy is there from the start, splitting Sylvari and NC, Asura and Inquest, Charr and Flame Legion, Norn and Sons of Svanir, Humans and Bandits/Ministry.

GW2 does not have gray areas of morality. It’s either good or bad.

Rhaegar.1203:

It isn’t “people”. It’s the writers. The dichotomy is there from the start, splitting Sylvari and NC, Asura and Inquest, Charr and Flame Legion, Norn and Sons of Svanir, Humans and Bandits/Ministry.

GW2 does not have gray areas of morality. It’s either good or bad.

I would agree that the writing is kind of trying to be Black/white morality, but there is also one problem I have with it – Both Inquest & SoS are accepted in their respective communities, which I find a bit dumb. Another thing, did the FL and SoS really need to introduce the ban of the females? I know the “canonical reasons”, but they are not really all that great and seem to be just put there so to say: “look, they don’ treat wemen like actual citizens, because they are EVIL!”. It makes especially nosense when both of this organisation are minorities among their people, so wouldn’t they need ANY allies they can get?

Gabriel.3962:

Another thing, did the FL and SoS really need to introduce the ban of the females?

Well Flame Legion doesn’t ban females, they just send their females to breeding camps… which has a very kitten -y vibe to it…

Gabriel.3962:

It makes especially nosense when both of this organisation are minorities among their people, so wouldn’t they need ANY allies they can get?

Well in the case of the Sons they’re actually part of the larger Icebrood, so they’ve got plenty of allies. Flame legion not so much.

CureForLiving.5360:

Gabriel.3962:

Another thing, did the FL and SoS really need to introduce the ban of the females?

Well Flame Legion doesn’t ban females, they just send their females to breeding camps… which has a very kitten -y vibe to it…

Gabriel.3962:

It makes especially nosense when both of this organisation are minorities among their people, so wouldn’t they need ANY allies they can get?

Well in the case of the Sons they’re actually part of the larger Icebrood, so they’ve got plenty of allies. Flame legion not so much.

Well, OK, that is some explanation, but the big one for me is still the acceptance of Inquest & Sons in their races, yet they both are called by everyone evil and the stories agrees with them. My main problem is that this doesn’t make much sense in Black/White morality story telling, as they could quit clearly be easily destroyed (propably excluding Sons since they are corrupted by Dragon), yet they still remain there – which means they must have something valueable to add to their communities, but that clashes with them being completly evil. Heck, Inquest literally makes no sense to, since they do not share they work with others.

Good and bad are dependent on your point of view.

The idea of “white hats” and “black hats” only exists in Hollywood. The humans blame the Charr for attacking them. The Charr blame the humans for invading their land. Ultimately two wrongs don’t make a right.

The Inquest are there because asura society, especially at the higher levels, is a shade of gray- and if you want to go through the contortions people seem compelled to to impose a white and black view, they’d probably come down on the black. The Arcane Council is, ultimately, geared towards world domination- it won’t be a brutal military conquest, and it won’t be anytime soon, but all the same they’re out to ensure the superiority of the asura, and the Inquest is the most valuable tool they currently have towards that end. If it helps, remember that this was a body that was perfectly willing to withhold vital information about the Elder Dragons from the orders and the other nations.

The Sons get to stay because the norn don’t believe in collective guilt- one of the writers, I think it might have been Jeff Grubb, said he’d compare them to a motorcycle gang. Sure, some, maybe even a lot, will do horrible things, but that means we hunt down the ones who have killed or stolen or whatever else, not that we arrest or kill everyone who rides a motorcycle on sight. The Sons in Hoelbrak haven’t done anything wrong. They just lurk in their tunnels and mutter unpleasantly. Outside of Hoelbrak, where the Sons encampments raid merchants or attack homesteads, you do see norn fighting them- but it’s not because they’re Sons, it’s because they’re raiding merchants and attacking homesteads.

Rhaegar.1203:

Yeah, that was also my impression. They withdrew into the Desert when Humans started to thrive.

Pretty much.

The Margonites fought the Forgotten, but that was a war that had humans on both sides. The Elonians under Turai also tangled with the Forgotten, but that seems to be a mix of the Elonians not realising that the Forgotten were sapient until they’d already initiated hostilities, and, well, the Forgotten being there in part to ensure that only the worthy could achieve Ascension.