Guild Wars 2

I was talking in mapchat… and I love a good friendly debate, or discussion, or a creative but non-abusive troll… and I find both lore and playing devil’s advocate very fun at times. The following idea kind of stemmed from that.

Was Prince Rurik’s dad really a bad guy? Did he banish his son? Sure, but in a way his son rebelled by speaking out against himand last I checked rebellion was treason. He could have been executed. He just did what he thought was best for his people, just like prince rurik did. That seems like a good thing even if hindsight is 20/20 and history/facts/logic is debatable. In a way by banishment he showed mercy. That’s way more than most kings did back then. Also this way his people would survive (the ones who fled to kryta/lions arch with rurik) if the worse should happen and the charr wiped them all out, but he also wouldn’t be seen as a coward but instead as a strong leader who stood up to a might foe up to the very end. All very admirable qualities and also quite well thought out.

Did he fight the charr? Absolutely. In gw1 times the charr were the bad guys… they caused the searing and ruined the land, murdered thousands of people savagely. We were the heroes for fighting the charr. Sure gw2 changed it to make it fit lorewise and made the shamans and flame legion the bad guys. But it was still the charr army and people as a whole. He was fighting the bad guys? The enemies that we helped and also slaughtered thousands of them? Sounds like a good guy/hero to me.

Did he turn his people into ghosts? Absolutely. Why did he do it? To keep them from dying savagely by the charr army that was about to wipe them all out anyways. At least this way they would keep on existing. Maybe even get some satisfaction from revenge or at least be their enemies thorn on their side. Did not the humans of orr do the same thing? Did not their leader drown the nation to save the humans from also experiencing a brutal and savage genocide by an invading charr army? And possible torture? Sure they drowned but it still seems less cruel. Was not orr the city of magic, the place the gods used to live? the center or enlightenment, the brilliant thinkers, the leaders, etc. Sure zhaiten raised it up in time and they became his undead servants but at the time they didn’t know any better. It was a hard decision but seemed like a good one. If nothing else they would take down their killers and enemies with them. So why is one ok and the human king’s foefire that turned them all into ghosts so bad? They can’t rest in peace maybe? Might hurt or be eternally kitten ed? Still suffering? Who knows. I doubt he was a highly skilled elementalist or necromancer familiar with all the possible side effects of unknown magic. He had a hard choice to make and made it like any decisive wise ruler.

Finally what about the great dwarf. In the battle against the great destroyer did he not also do a similar thing? Did we as heroes not help him do it? Did he not turn both his army and his entire race into stone soldiers to fight the destroyers eternally underground? How is that, that different from turning humans into ghosts to fight their enemies? Why is the dwarf considered a hero and the human king a villain? Because gw2 logic that says let’s all be friends says so? History is all perspective. If the king had the same intentions as the great dwarf couldn’t he also be a hero. Or at least a tragic hero? Why does he have to be remembered as a bad guy? Did not the dwarves when they turned to stone, also cease to exist as an individual. According to lore did they not become one person in mind, controlled by the king. Doesn’t that kind of mean they also died, at least the part that makes them who they are, their soul? Sure you could say they might have evolved, maybe, but who knows. Personally I would rather keep my individuality and not have to fight for eternity and be me, not a slave to a king’s every will. That seems way worse than being a ghost. At least they have memories and are themselves still. Following this logic maybe the great dwarf was a bad guy? He kind of did the same thing but worse in my opinion.

Just something to think about and consider. He also gave us fiery dragon swords and how cool is that

Chrono.6928:

Did he turn his people into ghosts? Absolutely. Why did he do it? To keep them from dying savagely by the charr army that was about to wipe them all out anyways. At least this way they would keep on existing. Maybe even get some satisfaction from revenge or at least be their enemies thorn on their side.

From what I remember, he casted the Foefire to be a punishment to his own people and not so much the Charr. He saw his own soldiers start to try and flee the field when it became obvious that the Charr were going to win, and in a fit of rage, he struck his sword against the ground unleashing the Foefire.

Did not the humans of orr do the same thing? Did not their leader drown the nation to save the humans from also experiencing a brutal and savage genocide by an invading charr army? And possible torture? Sure they drowned but it still seems less cruel. Was not orr the city of magic, the place the gods used to live? the center or enlightenment, the brilliant thinkers, the leaders, etc. Sure zhaiten raised it up in time and they became his undead servants but at the time they didn’t know any better. It was a hard decision but seemed like a good one. If nothing else they would take down their killers and enemies with them. So why is one ok and the human king’s foefire that turned them all into ghosts so bad? They can’t rest in peace maybe? Might hurt or be eternally kitten ed? Still suffering? Who knows. I doubt he was a highly skilled elementalist or necromancer familiar with all the possible side effects of unknown magic. He had a hard choice to make and made it like any decisive wise ruler.

No, they did not.

Vizier Khilbron, advisor to the king and later to become the Undead Lich, caused the Cataclysm which sunk Orr all by himself. He didn’t do it do save people from a worse fate, especially since some were trapped in the Realm of Torment simply because they were around Khilbron himself, even though they had no part in his plan. He simply caused it since it was a part of Abaddon’s endgame.

Finally what about the great dwarf. In the battle against the great destroyer did he not also do a similar thing? Did we as heroes not help him do it? Did he not turn both his army and his entire race into stone soldiers to fight the destroyers eternally underground? How is that, that different from turning humans into ghosts to fight their enemies? Why is the dwarf considered a hero and the human king a villain? Because gw2 logic that says let’s all be friends says so? History is all perspective. If the king had the same intentions as the great dwarf couldn’t he also be a hero. Or at least a tragic hero? Why does he have to be remembered as a bad guy? Did not the dwarves when they turned to stone, also cease to exist as an individual. According to lore did they not become one person in mind, controlled by the king. Doesn’t that kind of mean they also died, at least the part that makes them who they are, their soul? Sure you could say they might have evolved, maybe, but who knows. Personally I would rather keep my individuality and not have to fight for eternity and be me, not a slave to a king’s every will. That seems way worse than being a ghost. At least they have memories and are themselves still. Following this logic maybe the great dwarf was a bad guy? He kind of did the same thing but worse in my opinion.

Just something to think about and consider. He also gave us fiery dragon swords and how cool is that

The first converts to the Great Dwarf were willing. They willfully gave themselves up because they saw it as their great purpose to fight the Great Destroyer and later Primordus I’d imagine. It’s the later conversions of the Stone Summit and the rest of the rest where the morality goes a bit pear shaped since they forced them all.

Though, unless Ogden is a special snowflake, it would seem that the dwarves do keep some/most of their original personality. When they’re together though, it might be the case of the collective hive mind might muffle or smother some of their individual thought.

Depends on the game.

In GW1, he was a good guy(albeit a poor father).

In GW2, he was a monster.

In GW1, The father/king-son/prince argument that resulted in Rurik’s banishment was a plot device used to advance the PC(and the storyline) over the Shiverpeaks and away from Ascalon. It also served to set up Ruriks own death and “reanimation” at the hands of Khilbron at the end of Prophecies.

In order to make the fight against Rurik more emotionally appealing to the PC, they had to endear his character to the players. This is why he accompanies you on so many missions, even a few in pre-Searing. ANet could have, of course, used other ways to accomplish this, but adding rebelling against his own father and king proved to be a decent plot avenue. It makes your flight away from Ascalon more believable and accepting because you are “saving” Ascalons and living to fight another day.

Without that, why would any Ascalon(which is arguably what every single PC was who started in Prophecies) want to run away from their home at such a desperate hour? ANet certainly didn’t want to associate the PC with any notions of cowardice or fear, so they simply gave the story a means to bow out of the war honorably.

Adelbern came across as a royal kitten, but such is the nature of the story.

For GW2, ANet figured it wouldn’t hurt to put all the other nails in Adelbern’s coffin, since one was already in it…so to speak. Not to mention the Charr needed a home area like every other race. Turning both Adelbern into a villian, and Ascalon into Charr homeland, was a natural product of a new game with new devs and, most importantly, a new vision for the Guild Wars storyline.

Simply put, Adelbern was a narrative fall-guy. And I don’t mean the cool Lee Majors variety. ;-)

It’s not coincidence that when you search “War of Ascalon Independence” and “Ascalon Insurrection” you get the history of the Human-Charr conflict. The Charr were pegged to reign over Ascalon since EotN. “Evil sorcerer-king” Adelbern(which I personally never understood, he was always only a warrior) simply made it easier, and more accepting, for ANet to accomplish that.

Did he turn his people into ghosts? Absolutely. Why did he do it? To keep them from dying savagely by the charr army that was about to wipe them all out anyways. At least this way they would keep on existing. Maybe even get some satisfaction from revenge or at least be their enemies thorn on their side. Did not the humans of orr do the same thing? Did not their leader drown the nation to save the humans from also experiencing a brutal and savage genocide by an invading charr army? And possible torture? Sure they drowned but it still seems less cruel. Was not orr the city of magic, the place the gods used to live? the center or enlightenment, the brilliant thinkers, the leaders, etc. Sure zhaiten raised it up in time and they became his undead servants but at the time they didn’t know any better. It was a hard decision but seemed like a good one. If nothing else they would take down their killers and enemies with them. So why is one ok and the human king’s foefire that turned them all into ghosts so bad? They can’t rest in peace maybe? Might hurt or be eternally kitten ed? Still suffering? Who knows. I doubt he was a highly skilled elementalist or necromancer familiar with all the possible side effects of unknown magic. He had a hard choice to make and made it like any decisive wise ruler.

No. Most people don’t do evil acts for evil reasons. Most people commit evil acts for reasons that they believe are justified, to themselves at least. It is no small matter to both kill and enslave the subjects you should be protecting. Then again, it is quite typical of feudal monarchs to confuse their ambitions with the actual needs of their kingdom and to sacrifice any number of lives to satisfy those ambitions.

Remember that the foefire ghosts are filled with a blind hatred and that hatred comes from the king himself.

His actions were bad and he had a poor attitude. He’s not evil, but he’s far from a good guy.

Personally, I’ve always seen Adelbern as a tragic hero, not a villain. The deck was stacked against him, and he had a fatal flaw- his inability to forgive opposition- but if not from circumstance and that one conceit, he’d have been a solidly good character.

To clear a few things up on the OPs notes on the dwarves- you’re confusing the Great Dwarf and King Jalis Ironhammer. The Great Dwarf was a deity who may or may not actually exist. All the things you’re attributing to the Great Dwarf were the acts of King Jalis, generally considered a great dwarf, but not a Great one. Further, it seemed like the dwarves, both Jalis and the rank and file, had no idea what the ritual was going to do, and also, Jalis doesn’t control or possess or otherwise puppeteer the other dwarves- the ritual altered all of their minds, Jalis included.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

Personally, I’ve always seen Adelbern as a tragic hero, not a villain. The deck was stacked against him, and he had a fatal flaw- his inability to forgive opposition- but if not from circumstance and that one conceit, he’d have been a solidly good character.

To clear a few things up on the OPs notes on the dwarves- you’re confusing the Great Dwarf and King Jalis Ironhammer. The Great Dwarf was a deity who may or may not actually exist. All the things you’re attributing to the Great Dwarf were the acts of King Jalis, generally considered a great dwarf, but not a Great one. Further, it seemed like the dwarves, both Jalis and the rank and file, had no idea what the ritual was going to do, and also, Jalis doesn’t control or possess or otherwise puppeteer the other dwarves- the ritual altered all of their minds, Jalis included.

I maybe wrong, its been many years since playing, but I believed when the dwarves turned into stone they all became collectively “the great dwarf.” Yes it was a partially known and partially unknown prophecy and maybe it was a deity or not, I wouldn’t consider the dragon to be a deity, we know it to just be a lieutenant of the elder dragon, the 1st one to awaken from its slumber. The great dwarf was considered and prophesied to be his equal. So deity maybe to strong a word. Though if the dwarves did merge together maybe they evolved/ascended into a higher being, like some eastern religions.

Like I said I’m just having fun with this idea, but I agree I wouldn’t say he’s a bad dude. His ghost maybe but unintended eternal suffering can do that. That being said it really shouldn’t be that hard to imagine why he would have a hard time forgiving charr. Think of humanities own history, with its wars and hatred over race among other things. Now Imagine alien type beings or monsters or something else that is A) scary and stronger than us. They would probably go down in history as humanity’s mortal enemy too. In both gw1 and 2 it was very common for charr to call human “meat.” Pretty sure even Pyre Fierceshot threatened to eat Gwen a few times at first. Now maybe they would like for us to believe its just friendly rivalry and trash talking from rivals who used to be enemies but now secretly friends who don’t want to admit it, but I’m guessing back then, there’s a good chance charr ate humans. They have claws and teeth and spikes and tusks, they at least savagely impaled them, ripped them up, cut off their heads, slashed them to pieces, you get the idea, etc etc. If I saw my friends and family mawed down by a charr like a lion to a wilder-beast, I would probably have a hard time forgiving them too.

This is the last bit of dialogue from Adelbern you get from him in GW1, after you complete the quest to return to Ascalon and save it from a Titan/Charr attack.

“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.”

Doesn’t really sound like later lore paints him.

Lurinna.4306:

This is the last bit of dialogue from Adelbern you get from him in GW1, after you complete the quest to return to Ascalon and save it from a Titan/Charr attack.

“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.”

Doesn’t really sound like later lore paints him.

You also have to remember that the Foefire took place somewhere around 17-18 years after that quest, and Adelbern was about 79 when he “died”. He spent 20 years ruling a ruined kingdom and trying to protect it from constant Charr attacks amongst other threats.

He might have been a good character in gw1, but it’s understandable that a combination of his age and the stress of rule might have made his mental state take a turn for the worse.

Erukk.1408:

He might have been a good character in gw1, but it’s understandable that a combination of his age and the stress of rule might have made his mental state take a turn for the worse.

He wasn’t really a good character in GW1 though…
For suggesting that Ascalon needs the help of Kryta because Stormcaller isn’t some god-like weapon against the Charr his father exiles him. That’s pretty crazy. Your son mentions that it might be a good idea to get help from people you don’t like so you exile him?!

I mean you can argue that his intentions were good, but having good intentions doesn’t make you a good person. His actions were borderline imbecilic.

He was a crazy old fool.

Really, when I played through, I didn’t want to leave ascalon, but felt forced for plots sake. And after the escort of survivors, you barely ever hear of ascalon. While if my character disagreed with the king, I still would want to know what’s happening with my teachers, friends, etc. But its just cut off (and as a hero, I wouldn’t want to turn my back on anyone), until so far later on.

As for being a bad guy, its from a view point. Its actually kinda funny that with a few changes (where to go, and scenerary) we could change the beginning plot at least to when humans invaded ascalon with their gods, killing and forcing the charr from their lands, and you as a charr hero would have to lead a migration, and then help in the search for your own gods to help retake your land…and then choose to stand with those that believed in Pierce Fireshot or the Caste.

As for the king, I saw him as a flawed hero. He had his beliefs, and stuck to them despite evidence saying otherwise. He believed what he was doing was right, despite them being wrong. His heart was in the right place, but actions spoke otherwise.

As for turning his people into ghosts, no, that was not a heroic thing, nor a good thing. The foefire killed the charr, but he still lost, and he kitten ed his people to be chained for eternity (because there hasn’t been a rightful heir to step forward, etc, to break the curse). Imagine that. Being chained to a plain to fight for the rest of your life. No rest, nothing but combat. You would get to see your for grow old and living a life, while you can’t. And because you can never rest, you can’t pass on to the mists to meet loved ones that have moved on. No, what Adelbern did was far from heroic and good, he kitten ed his people to an eternal hell, all for petty revenge.

Serophous.9085:

As for the king, I saw him as a flawed hero. He had his beliefs, and stuck to them despite evidence saying otherwise. He believed what he was doing was right, despite them being wrong. His heart was in the right place, but actions spoke otherwise.

A bit like every single tyrant ever you mean? Should we start calling Hitler, Stalin and Caligula for “flawed heroes” as well?

99,9% of evil people does not consider themselves evil, but rather consider what they are doing for the greater good.

lordkrall.7241:

Serophous.9085:

As for the king, I saw him as a flawed hero. He had his beliefs, and stuck to them despite evidence saying otherwise. He believed what he was doing was right, despite them being wrong. His heart was in the right place, but actions spoke otherwise.

A bit like every single tyrant ever you mean? Should we start calling Hitler, Stalin and Caligula for “flawed heroes” as well?

99,9% of evil people does not consider themselves evil, but rather consider what they are doing for the greater good.

Your comparison doesn’t work. They came into power by feeding on peoples despair and making false promises. They hadn’t proven themselves at all as great leaders.

Adelbern was different. He didn’t come out and say “make me your king” after the guild wars, the people demanded he be king because of his demeanor and heroics on the battlefield. Thus, he’s a hero. We learn that he his flawed as the war and battle against the charr take their toll, and he doesn’t have the battle mind endurance for such a long fight. Not to mention the hit of losing your only son.

So yes, Adelbern was a flawed hero.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

He wasn’t really a good character in GW1 though…

Good character as him actually having a bit of depth in gw1. Compared to him getting downgraded to a one dimensional “ALL CHARR MUST DIE!” villain that he is now.

Rurik really didn’t have to leave Ascalon. He chose to though. I remember doing quests for Adlebern. He really wasn’t that bad a guy at the time, but if you read the book ghosts of Ascalon you meet a ghost who was put to death right before the foefire so he kept his sanity unlike the other ghosts, and he says the loss of his son was a huge blow to him, and the lose of his kingdom drove him over the edge.

Erukk.1408:

FlamingFoxx.1305:

He wasn’t really a good character in GW1 though…

Good character as him actually having a bit of depth in gw1. Compared to him getting downgraded to a one dimensional “ALL CHARR MUST DIE!” villain that he is now.

If you come into gw2 without knowing the history, then yes, he is one dimension. His character was fleshed out in gw1 and books. He banished his son, he then lost said son (and technically could’ve blamed himself for it in an indirect way), he watched as his land burned, people killed, etc. He couldn’t endure it all, and basically snapped. Hence who you see in gw2 as a ghost. He is just all rage now, everything else that made him a person was “burned” away.

Lord Erik.6903:

Rurik really didn’t have to leave Ascalon. He chose to though. I remember doing quests for Adlebern. He really wasn’t that bad a guy at the time, but if you read the book ghosts of Ascalon you meet a ghost who was put to death right before the foefire so he kept his sanity unlike the other ghosts, and he says the loss of his son was a huge blow to him, and the lose of his kingdom drove him over the edge.

It was a differences in beliefs. Rurik, being out on the field, believed that ascalon didnt stand a chance(and was right), and wanted to flee with the survivors to kryta, rebuild their strength, and take ascalon back one day. Adelbern believed they could still win. You, as the hero, just didn’t have a choice on who you wanted to believe, but were dragged along with Rurik because of plot.

Of course as long as Adelbern is King, Rurik is only a Prince, and it really wasn’t his call. So Rurik was in the wrong here, even if his intentions were good. He went directly against the order of his father, the King. That is an act of treason, simple as that.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Of course as long as Adelbern is King, Rurik is only a Prince, and it really wasn’t his call. So Rurik was in the wrong here, even if his intentions were good. He went directly against the order of his father, the King. That is an act of treason, simple as that.

And yet acts of treason is not always wrong.

Should you really listen to a ruler that would rather get his whole kingdom killed rather than ask for help due to pride?

More of his “pride” and hatred of all things Krytan (leftovers from the Guild Wars) shows during the War in Kryta storyline (also note Evennia’s disappearance in Old Ascalon).

Serophous.9085:

Lord Erik.6903:

Rurik really didn’t have to leave Ascalon. He chose to though. I remember doing quests for Adlebern. He really wasn’t that bad a guy at the time, but if you read the book ghosts of Ascalon you meet a ghost who was put to death right before the foefire so he kept his sanity unlike the other ghosts, and he says the loss of his son was a huge blow to him, and the lose of his kingdom drove him over the edge.

It was a differences in beliefs. Rurik, being out on the field, believed that ascalon didnt stand a chance(and was right), and wanted to flee with the survivors to kryta, rebuild their strength, and take ascalon back one day. Adelbern believed they could still win. You, as the hero, just didn’t have a choice on who you wanted to believe, but were dragged along with Rurik because of plot.

Not true.

Ascalon was written to have won the war, as was referenced to in Factions’ An Empire Divided. Rurik was actually wrong in running, he merely served as the plot device to drive the PC away from Ascalon and towards Kryta(among other things). The problem is that the original writers never got around to revisting the Ascalon storyline until a new continuity crew took over at ANet. They saw that Ascalon was never truly resolved, and quickly took the opportunity to insert their own alternative plot into the storyline.

lordkrall.7241:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Of course as long as Adelbern is King, Rurik is only a Prince, and it really wasn’t his call. So Rurik was in the wrong here, even if his intentions were good. He went directly against the order of his father, the King. That is an act of treason, simple as that.

And yet acts of treason is not always wrong.

Should you really listen to a ruler that would rather get his whole kingdom killed rather than ask for help due to pride?

The civilians and soldiers that stayed behind had a choice: stay and fight their age-old enemy for “reasons”, or run to Kryta leaving it all behind. Those that stayed and, ultimately died whether by Charr or Foefire did so knowing that their futures were probably pretty grim.

Beyond that, I’m in the camp that ANet specifically made Adelbern look like a monster to make the Charr more amiable. Or, it’s all a farce ( how Adelbern’s portrayed in GW2 ) and it’s just the Charr’s way of telling the story to again, make it seem like they’re a half-way decent race.

Copestetic.5174:

lordkrall.7241:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Of course as long as Adelbern is King, Rurik is only a Prince, and it really wasn’t his call. So Rurik was in the wrong here, even if his intentions were good. He went directly against the order of his father, the King. That is an act of treason, simple as that.

And yet acts of treason is not always wrong.

Should you really listen to a ruler that would rather get his whole kingdom killed rather than ask for help due to pride?

The civilians and soldiers that stayed behind had a choice: stay and fight their age-old enemy for “reasons”, or run to Kryta leaving it all behind. Those that stayed and, ultimately died whether by Charr or Foefire did so knowing that their futures were probably pretty grim.

Beyond that, I’m in the camp that ANet specifically made Adelbern look like a monster to make the Charr more amiable. Or, it’s all a farce ( how Adelbern’s portrayed in GW2 ) and it’s just the Charr’s way of telling the story to again, make it seem like they’re a half-way decent race.

To an extent I agree, but the journey from Ascalon to Kryta was not an easy one. There would have been plenty of civilians who would have been too scared or unable to make the journey through the shiverpeak mountains and into Kryta. The Charr held the lands surrounding Ascalon so it’s not as if there was a clear path. And the way into the Shiverpeaks was infested with Stone Summit, Ettin, and Hydras. Not to mention once you actually got through the Shiverpeaks you had the Orrian Undead to deal with before you actually got to the gates of Kryta. Not an easy journey to make without a ton of protection – hence Rurik being killed on the way.

lordkrall.7241:

And yet acts of treason is not always wrong.

Should you really listen to a ruler that would rather get his whole kingdom killed rather than ask for help due to pride?

The thing to keep in mind is that Rurik’s betrayal could severely undermine the King, and have a bad effect on troop morale. And his journey across the Shiverpeaks could just as easily have resulted in the death of all those Ascalons, and not just himself. Its easy to look back in hindsight and say that he was right. But what he did was wrong, even if his intentions were good.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

The thing to keep in mind is that Rurik’s betrayal could severely undermine the King, and have a bad effect on troop morale. And his journey across the Shiverpeaks could just as easily have resulted in the death of all those Ascalons, and not just himself. Its easy to look back in hindsight and say that he was right. But what he did was wrong, even if his intentions were good.

Wasn’t the choices basically: Stay and more or less guarantee the death of everyone or seek aid and risk the death of everyone?
I got that impression while playing the story at least.

lordkrall.7241:

Wasn’t the choices basically: Stay and more or less guarantee the death of everyone or seek aid and risk the death of everyone?

No. What gave you that idea?

Obsidian.1328:

lordkrall.7241:

Wasn’t the choices basically: Stay and more or less guarantee the death of everyone or seek aid and risk the death of everyone?

No. What gave you that idea?

The whole “if we stay here, we’re all gonna die” speech, I would imagine. It didn’t help that Adelbern’s response was basically “Yeah, well, you’re banished, so there!”

Lordkrall and Aaron are right. Adelbern is the only one who didn’t think the Charr invasion was an imminent problem. Everyone else, the player character included, had seen first hand just how hopeless it was to stay. The choice was either stay and die (oh look, that happened) or leave and maybe survive. The Ascalonian settlement in Kryta was a testament to the viability of Rurik’s suggestion.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

The choice was either stay and die (oh look, that happened) or leave and maybe survive.

Then why did Ascalon win the war?

Obsidian.1328:

FlamingFoxx.1305:

The choice was either stay and die (oh look, that happened) or leave and maybe survive.

Then why did Ascalon win the war?

They didn’t. A single, out of game, source, about something else entirely, made mention of “recovering after the conflict”- which does not necessarily mean they won the war- and even if it was meant that way, in the game it was later shown that they most certainly weren’t winning. I get that you have some deep-seated issues with the direction GW2 went in, and I even sympathize to a certain point, but in this case it just doesn’t work. Even ignoring that you’re trying to hold one out-of-game line over numerous in-game indications, it wouldn’t make sense for Ascalon to win the war at that point- their food supplies had been reduced to whatever stores survived the Searing, the army would’ve taken heavy casualties in the same and been further reduced with Rurik’s schism, and as we later found out (although I’m sure you’ll argue that such ideas originated with the later teams) the charr still had plentifully fertile lands from which to feed and breed their forces. It was either a miracle or simply badly thought out that Adelbern managed to last for 20 years. Outright victory? Nothing short of Melandru and Balthazar’s direct intervention could’ve managed that.

Obsidian.1328:

Then why did Ascalon win the war?

Does killing every single human (and forcing them to return as Ghosts forever) really count as “win the war”? (Even if that happened in Guild Wars 2s time line). There was nothing whatsoever in Guild Wars 1 that suggests that Ascalon won the war.

Most parts of Ascalon is controlled by the Charr, the parts that aren’t are controlled by Ghosts, not Humans.

lordkrall.7241:

Most parts of Ascalon is controlled by the Charr, the parts that aren’t are controlled by Ghosts, not Humans.

There’s one notable exception, of course.

lordkrall.7241:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

The thing to keep in mind is that Rurik’s betrayal could severely undermine the King, and have a bad effect on troop morale. And his journey across the Shiverpeaks could just as easily have resulted in the death of all those Ascalons, and not just himself. Its easy to look back in hindsight and say that he was right. But what he did was wrong, even if his intentions were good.

Wasn’t the choices basically: Stay and more or less guarantee the death of everyone or seek aid and risk the death of everyone?
I got that impression while playing the story at least.

Let’s not forget there’s factors that’s not getting any attention, and two of them are pride and honor. Obligation could be another, and patriotism as well. While Rurik and co. had no objections on saving their own skins, others stayed behind to fight a war for as long as they could; probably, due to the above.

Copestetic.5174:

lordkrall.7241:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

The thing to keep in mind is that Rurik’s betrayal could severely undermine the King, and have a bad effect on troop morale. And his journey across the Shiverpeaks could just as easily have resulted in the death of all those Ascalons, and not just himself. Its easy to look back in hindsight and say that he was right. But what he did was wrong, even if his intentions were good.

Wasn’t the choices basically: Stay and more or less guarantee the death of everyone or seek aid and risk the death of everyone?
I got that impression while playing the story at least.

Let’s not forget there’s factors that’s not getting any attention, and two of them are pride and honor. Obligation could be another, and patriotism as well. While Rurik and co. had no objections on saving their own skins, others stayed behind to fight a war for as long as they could; probably, due to the above.

I’d argue there’s no honor in leading people to a meaningless death, and pride and patriotism that have similar effects are more vice than virtue. A leader’s obligations are to his people, namely, to ensure their well-being, so obligation called Rurik- and Adelbern- to Kryta.

Only the usual misatropists on these forums (König, Ansari, and cronies) would think he’s a bad guy. Unlike the spineless cowards that ruled Kryta since, Adelbern actually fought to the last – as we all should.

Have some pride.

Mental Paradox.3845:

Have some pride.

Which is the root of this whole problem at the end of the day. Adelbern had too much pride. So much so, it shackled him to Ascalon and ultimately doomed his people because his pride would allow for nothing else.

Mental Paradox.3845:

Only the usual misatropists on these forums (König, Ansari, and cronies) would think he’s a bad guy. Unlike the spineless cowards that ruled Kryta since, Adelbern actually fought to the last – as we all should.

Have some pride.

Ah, so you’re one of those patriots who would rather see his nation destroyed than seeing it survive in a altered/weakened state. Wait.. that makes no sense whatsoever. Especially if you cared about Ascalon you should favor Rurik’s choice. Without Rurik’s choice there would be no Ebonhawke today, there would be no Ascalon settlement today, there would be no Rurikton today and there would be no Ascalonian royalty/ministers in the Kryta upper regions roday. Abandoning Ascalon was the best chance of perserving Ascalon.

Diovid.9506:

Mental Paradox.3845:

Only the usual misatropists on these forums (König, Ansari, and cronies) would think he’s a bad guy. Unlike the spineless cowards that ruled Kryta since, Adelbern actually fought to the last – as we all should.

Have some pride.

Ah, so you’re one of those patriots who would rather see his nation destroyed than seeing it survive in a altered/weakened state. Wait.. that makes no sense whatsoever. Especially if you cared about Ascalon you should favor Rurik’s choice. Without Rurik’s choice there would be no Ebonhawke today, there would be no Ascalon settlement today, there would be no Rurikton today and there would be no Ascalonian royalty/ministers in the Kryta upper regions roday. Abandoning Ascalon was the best chance of perserving Ascalon.

We know these things in hindsight. At the moment Rurik was exiled, it wasn’t so obvious. The war still seemed quite winnable at that point, I think.

Mental Paradox.3845:

We know these things in hindsight. At the moment Rurik was exiled, it wasn’t so obvious. The war still seemed quite winnable at that point, I think.

King Adelbern: “Rise, my son. you have done well. The discovery of Stormcaller is surely a sign of victory.”
Prince Rurik: “It is a powerful weapon, but I fear not powerful enough. The Charr have amassed an army of many thousands.”
King Adelbern: “You overestimate these beasts, Rurik. Do not be afraid.”
Prince Rurik: “I am not afraid, father. I have seen them in battle. Rin has been destroyed! It would be wise to escape while we can. We should make for Kryta and rebuild our strength. Not wait here for death.”
King Adelbern: “I will never allow Ascalons to live in the shadow of the Krytans! It is Rin that will be rebuilt. And you will learn your place.”
Prince Rurik: “You have grown proud, Adelbern of Ascalon…proud and foolish!”
King Adelbern: “You would dare call your king a fool? I will hear no more. I banish you from Ascalon! You are no longer my prince, and you are no longer my son!”

Manageable for now? Sure. Winnable in the future? Slim to none.

After the Searing and its devastating losses, Charr harassment afterwards slowly picking off their numbers, most/all the farmland turning into a barren wasteland, Adelbern being too stubborn to ask Kryta for help, and numerous other factors, the arrival of a huge Charr army kinda put a countdown clock on the human rule of Ascalon. They survived for a long time because of the disarray and infighting within the Charr ranks, but Ascalon’s end was going to come sooner or later. It was just a matter of when.

A misanthrope with cronies? Sweet! Best of both worlds, imo.

But more seriously, Mental, we aren’t going to get anywhere if we just both say that the other person is wrong. You claim the war seemed winnable, and you proved in the thread that apparently got me my new label that you can think these things through, so I admit to being honestly curious. How would you have gotten around the lack of arable land, or the apparent lack of fresh water sources? What edge did the Ascalonians hold that they might have won?

Mental Paradox.3845:

Diovid.9506:

Mental Paradox.3845:

Only the usual misatropists on these forums (König, Ansari, and cronies) would think he’s a bad guy. Unlike the spineless cowards that ruled Kryta since, Adelbern actually fought to the last – as we all should.

Have some pride.

Ah, so you’re one of those patriots who would rather see his nation destroyed than seeing it survive in a altered/weakened state. Wait.. that makes no sense whatsoever. Especially if you cared about Ascalon you should favor Rurik’s choice. Without Rurik’s choice there would be no Ebonhawke today, there would be no Ascalon settlement today, there would be no Rurikton today and there would be no Ascalonian royalty/ministers in the Kryta upper regions roday. Abandoning Ascalon was the best chance of perserving Ascalon.

We know these things in hindsight. At the moment Rurik was exiled, it wasn’t so obvious. The war still seemed quite winnable at that point, I think.

At the moment Rurik was exiled Rurik had just proven that Stormcaller wasn’t an allmightly Charr-destroyer, but instead sort of just made it rain and raised everyones morale a little. Adelbern decided to ignore that fact and believe that it could be used to win the war. Other than that there was nothing to suggest they could win. Most of Ascalon was in ruins. The searing had destroyed almost everything other than Ascalon City. Only a fool would believe that Ascalon stood a chance. And only a food did believe…

Obsidian.1328:

~Snip~
Not to mention the Charr needed a home area like every other race. Turning both Adelbern into a villian, and Ascalon into Charr homeland, was a natural product of a new game with new devs and, most importantly, a new vision for the Guild Wars storyline.

~Snip~

Obsidian.1328:

~Snip~
Ascalon was written to have won the war, as was referenced to in Factions’ An Empire Divided. Rurik was actually wrong in running, he merely served as the plot device to drive the PC away from Ascalon and towards Kryta(among other things). The problem is that the original writers never got around to revisting the Ascalon storyline until a new continuity crew took over at ANet. They saw that Ascalon was never truly resolved, and quickly took the opportunity to insert their own alternative plot into the storyline.

Obsidian, I’m quoting you twice because you are wrong in both of those quotes. The same people that wrote Prophecies also were there at the beginning of GW2, as matter of fact, GW2 was started on by the original people, so there was no loss in continuity. Also, some of the people that worked in other areas, like art(see Peter Fries), later went on to work in writing, the current writers are more than adequately familiar with the story of GW1.

Now back to your regular discussion based upon these facts.

Well I do know that if I was loosing a war, I would at least make sure my enemy can’t win either. If I can’t have my nation, then the enemy can’t either.

Of course Ascalon was originally charr land but from his perspective, that’s what I’d probably do.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

Well I do know that if I was loosing a war, I would at least make sure my enemy can’t win either. If I can’t have my nation, then the enemy can’t either.

Of course Ascalon was originally charr land but from his perspective, that’s what I’d probably do.

Really. If you were in charge of an entire nation and you knew you could not win the war would you subject your people to death/permanent undeath instead of fleeing just so that your enemy didn’t ‘win’.

If you’re dead you can’t use the land. What does it matter if the enemy gains it if the cost of preventing them from doing so is killing every single person who looked to you to protect and guide them.

That is horrific.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

Well I do know that if I was loosing a war, I would at least make sure my enemy can’t win either. If I can’t have my nation, then the enemy can’t either.

Of course Ascalon was originally charr land but from his perspective, that’s what I’d probably do.

Really. If you were in charge of an entire nation and you knew you could not win the war would you subject your people to death/permanent undeath instead of fleeing just so that your enemy didn’t ‘win’.

If you’re dead you can’t use the land. What does it matter if the enemy gains it if the cost of preventing them from doing so is killing every single person who looked to you to protect and guide them.

That is horrific.

If I was in his shoes I probably would yes. If we are going to die anyway, then I might as well take my enemy with me.

And most importantly, this gave the last of my people, the people of ebonhawke, a fighting change. The charr would have lost a large part of their army and gained a new enemy (the ghosts of ascalon). This could have given Ebonhawke some relief necessary to dig in and hold out.

I wouldn’t have liked killing my own people but this is the ruthless calculus and hard reality of war. A number of people die here (people who were going to die anyway in this case) so a number of people somewhere else can live.

I would have seen it as an honorable sacrifice to give the last of my people a fighting chance to live. At least that would have been mine reasoning. Adelbern probably just did it out of spite and anger.

Obsidian.1328:

Serophous.9085:

Lord Erik.6903:

Rurik really didn’t have to leave Ascalon. He chose to though. I remember doing quests for Adlebern. He really wasn’t that bad a guy at the time, but if you read the book ghosts of Ascalon you meet a ghost who was put to death right before the foefire so he kept his sanity unlike the other ghosts, and he says the loss of his son was a huge blow to him, and the lose of his kingdom drove him over the edge.

It was a differences in beliefs. Rurik, being out on the field, believed that ascalon didnt stand a chance(and was right), and wanted to flee with the survivors to kryta, rebuild their strength, and take ascalon back one day. Adelbern believed they could still win. You, as the hero, just didn’t have a choice on who you wanted to believe, but were dragged along with Rurik because of plot.

Not true.

Ascalon was written to have won the war, as was referenced to in Factions’ An Empire Divided. Rurik was actually wrong in running, he merely served as the plot device to drive the PC away from Ascalon and towards Kryta(among other things). The problem is that the original writers never got around to revisting the Ascalon storyline until a new continuity crew took over at ANet. They saw that Ascalon was never truly resolved, and quickly took the opportunity to insert their own alternative plot into the storyline.

“Recovering from conflict” does not necessarily mean victory. Though Ascalon dealt a huge blow to the charr in 1072 via killing their gods, which no doubt caused internal strife larger than just Pyre’s warband’s insurrection the following year.

Though at the time of the writing of An Empire Divided, I don’t think Prophecies had finished, since lore indicates that the events on Shing Jea Island – which are mentioned in An Empire Divided – happened before the events of Prophecies came to a conclusion.

Now that I’ve posted once in this topic…

Moving on.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

Well I do know that if I was loosing a war, I would at least make sure my enemy can’t win either. If I can’t have my nation, then the enemy can’t either.

Of course Ascalon was originally charr land but from his perspective, that’s what I’d probably do.

Really. If you were in charge of an entire nation and you knew you could not win the war would you subject your people to death/permanent undeath instead of fleeing just so that your enemy didn’t ‘win’.

If you’re dead you can’t use the land. What does it matter if the enemy gains it if the cost of preventing them from doing so is killing every single person who looked to you to protect and guide them.

That is horrific.

If I was in his shoes I probably would yes. If we are going to die anyway, then I might as well take my enemy with me.

And most importantly, this gave the last of my people, the people of ebonhawke, a fighting change. The charr would have lost a large part of their army and gained a new enemy (the ghosts of ascalon). This could have given Ebonhawke some relief necessary to dig in and hold out.

I wouldn’t have liked killing my own people but this is the ruthless calculus and hard reality of war. A number of people die here (people who were going to die anyway in this case) so a number of people somewhere else can live.

I would have seen it as an honorable sacrifice to give the last of my people a fighting chance to live. At least that would have been mine reasoning. Adelbern probably just did it out of spite and anger.

The lives of the people in a kingdom are not their kings to sacrifice. There’s no way of looking at this where Adelburn isn’t a bad guy. He could have encouraged his people to flee, he could have led them somewhere safer. He could have asked for help from the Krytans like Rurik wanted him to. Instead he decides to stay behind, keep his people behind under the false hope that they had a chance of winning. And then kill his own people. Their lives weren’t his to bargain with. It’s not an honourable sacrifice. It’s murder.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

I would have seen it as an honorable sacrifice to give the last of my people a fighting chance to live. At least that would have been mine reasoning. Adelbern probably just did it out of spite and anger.

But forcing them to stay in Ascalon didn’t give them a fighting chance to live. There was no chance whatsoever that they would survive the Charr invasion forever. Fleeing to Kryta in search of aid (and potentially use their help to reclaim Ascalon) would be much more about giving people a fighting chance.

lordkrall.7241:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

I would have seen it as an honorable sacrifice to give the last of my people a fighting chance to live. At least that would have been mine reasoning. Adelbern probably just did it out of spite and anger.

But forcing them to stay in Ascalon didn’t give them a fighting chance to live. There was no chance whatsoever that they would survive the Charr invasion forever. Fleeing to Kryta in search of aid (and potentially use their help to reclaim Ascalon) would be much more about giving people a fighting chance.

Just out of curiosity, where in lore does it say he made them ( soldiers and civilians ) stay?

Copestetic.5174:

Just out of curiosity, where in lore does it say he made them ( soldiers and civilians ) stay?

He basically banished anyone who decided to follow Rurik (who wanted to retreat and seek the aid of Kryta) and as such most people decided to not follow Rurik.
The few soldier going with Rurik were not even close enough to defend all the civilians and as such they had little to no chance of survival if all the civilians came with them.

So basically Adelbern indirectly forced people to stay.