Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Pyro.4765

Pyro.4765

For me, it’s that the Charr will likely never get their comeuppance, Ascalon will likely never be restored, and there are no dialogue options to make your hero feel anything but respect for the Charr.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Bathos.6341

Bathos.6341

You clearly need to look at that lore more closely. Ascalon was built by humans ON CHARR LAND. they didn’t just come in and conqour the charr living there, they ETHNICLY CLEANSED the entire region. What do you think happened to the displaced charr?
Those that did not die fighting. They got shoved north to the bloodlegion homelands, but that land was already occupied.
The charr were a bronze age tribal society back then, you can’t just double the population in their remaining territory. Those charr that survived expulsion from ascalon either killed a northern tribe and took their space, died trying to do this, or STARVED TO DEATH.
The charr didn’t attack ascalon out of malace, they attacked it to take back land taken from them, and to avenge an entire GENERATION of their people massacred by humans.
The humans sowed the wind, they should have expected to wreap the whirlwind.
Charr killed civilians, and enslaved human prisoners for brutal forced labor, Humans as recently as the events of guild wars 1 used to skin dead charr and use their hide for suits of armour.
Two wrongs don’t equal a right, but right now the scores are even at one genocide a side, and I’d really rather the war stopped there rather than cause any more.

(edited by Bathos.6341)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Scipio.3204

Scipio.3204

Two wrongs don’t equal a right, but right now the scores are even at one genocide a side, and I’d really rather the war stopped there rather than cause any more.

Except the charr didn’t stop at ascalon. Thanks to the charr orr got destroyed & Kryta was taken over by the mursaats and the white mantle.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Bathos.6341

Bathos.6341

Yeah, driven on by the flame legion. Even the charr think the flame legion were out of line there.
The russians didn’t stop at the russian border when they threw germany out in the second world war either. It’s easy to get carried away in a war for vengence, especially if your leadership is corrupt.

(edited by Bathos.6341)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Pyro.4765

Pyro.4765

You clearly need to look at that lore more closely. Ascalon was built by humans ON CHARR LAND. they didn’t just come in and conqour the charr living there, they ETHNICLY CLEANSED the entire region. What do you think happened to the displaced charr?
Those that did not die fighting. They got shoved north to the bloodlegion homelands, but that land was already occupied.
The charr were a bronze age tribal society back then, you can’t just double the population in their remaining territory. Those charr that survived expulsion from ascalon either killed a northern tribe and took their space, died trying to do this, or STARVED TO DEATH.
The charr didn’t attack ascalon out of malace, they attacked it to take back land taken from them, and to avenge an entire GENERATION of their people massacred by humans.
The humans sowed the wind, they should have expected to wreap the whirlwind.
Charr killed civilians, and enslaved human prisoners for brutal forced labor, Humans as recently as the events of guild wars 1 used to skin dead charr and use their hide for suits of armour.
Two wrongs don’t equal a right, but right now the scores are even at one genocide a side, and I’d really rather the war stopped there rather than cause any more.

Well, first, Ascalon had existed as a human kingdom for a loooong time. The people who got killed in the Searing had nothing to do with the human push into Charr lands.
Second, the Grawl had control of the land before the Charr. The Charr just had what they pulled on the Grawl done to them by the humans.
Third, the Charr largely did attack Ascalon out of malice and the urgings of the Titans. The assault on Ascalon wasn’t some inspirited and righteous push to reclaim a fallen homeland (which wasn’t even theirs to begin with), it was just the first step in a general push towards wiping out humanity.
Fourth, dialogue from GW1 (for instance, Pyre’s) seems to demonstrate that the Charr’s goal was not to conquer Ascalon but to ruin it. They didn’t even intend to use the land productively, they just wanted to salt the earth and burn the fields.
Fifth and finally, the Flame Legion and the Charr at large were mostly inseparable for a lot of history and the taking of Ascalon was the work of Flame Legion magic. The Charr always seem to want to claim glory for taking Ascalon while shedding responsibility for the actions of the Flame Legion, and I think that’s fundamentally hypocritical. Especially when their justification for the invasion is the sins of humans past.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Riot Inducer.8964

Riot Inducer.8964

Yeah, driven on by the flame legion. Even the charr think the flame legion were out of line there.
The russians didn’t stop at the russian border when they threw germany out in the second world war either. It’s easy to get carried away in a war for vengence, especially if your leadership is corrupt.

Doubly so when your corrupt leadership worships demonic servants of a mad god. I mean when you consider the events of the Cataclysm it really seems that the charr invasions of Orr and Kryta were a part of Abaddon’s plan and did not have the best interests of the charr in mind whatsoever. Losing their armies in Orr and Kryta set back the charr’s final conquest of Ascalon by twenty years.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: CureForLiving.5360

CureForLiving.5360

The thing that gets me depressed about lore is that we don’t have enough of it. Or more accurately, as fun as dynamic events are for gameplay they’re not very good at conveying lore or story.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: prism.4982

prism.4982

Well the Charr went and built the Black Citadel ON TOP OF RIN. If that isn’t a sign of “in your face” disrespect I don’t know what it is.

Also Ascalon was built on the lower half of the area, not all of it. And we don’t even know what’s north of the Blood Legion’s homeland; for all we know it could be an even bigger area of fertile land. You tell me that sending thousands of soldiers to retake an average-sized piece of land is better than build up your OWN border defenses and build your OWN cities??

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Bathos.6341

Bathos.6341

My contention is merely that the origins of the human charr war are much older than the searing, and netiehr side is innocent. lets leave it at that, saking for vengence on the charr is just going to continue a war of massacre and counter massacure that’s been going on for centuries already, which does no one any good, especuially during a dragon incursion.
P.S. While the charr did take their land from the grawl before them, the difference there is they never tried to completely remove the grawl. You’d still find grawl tribes living in charr territory, you didn’t find any charr villages in Ascalon under human rule.

(edited by Bathos.6341)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: prism.4982

prism.4982

My contention is merely that the origins of the human charr war are much older than the searing, and netiehr side is innocent. lets leave it at that, saking for vengence on the charr is just going to continue a war of massacre and counter massacure that’s been going on for centuries already, which does no one any good, especuially during a dragon incursion.
P.S. While the charr did take their land from the grawl before them, the difference there is they never tried to completely remove the grawl. You’d still find grawl tribes living in charr territory, you didn’t find any charr villages in Ascalon under human rule.

Of course you’re not going to find any charr near human settlements; we all know how well charr play with others…

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Jelle.2807

Jelle.2807

In defense of the humans:

Firstly afaik there aren’t many details about what sparked the first charr human conflicts. The original ascalonian settlers may well have been peaceful, while what we do know is that the charr have a history of being territorial and agressive. And even then if you look at the wall the ascalonians only took a small portion of the land, only a fraction of what lay north of the wall and east of the blazeridge. It’s only after the charr continued throwing themselves at the humans and lost their khan that they started losing land, in part due to violent infighting.

Secondly, claiming land because at some point in time some far ancestor called it home isn’t particularly good ethics. Hell, the forgotten have a greater claim on ascalon than the charr in that case. In the end land belongs to those who are born of it, which then were ascalonians and now are modern day charr. The ‘this is charr land’ justification is no more than an excuse for the glorification of their warmongering history.

The charr didn’t attack ascalon out of malace, they attacked it to take back land taken from them, and to avenge an entire GENERATION of their people massacred by humans.

You realize the charr invasion was nearly a millenium after they were driven out? By all accounts it was ancient history by then, especially when you consider the searing was no more than three centuries ago current time.

(edited by Jelle.2807)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Daniel Handler.4816

Daniel Handler.4816

In defense of the humans:

Firstly afaik there aren’t many details about what sparked the first charr human conflicts. The original ascalonian settlers may well have been peaceful, while what we do know is that the charr have a history of being territorial and agressive. And even then if you look at the wall the ascalonians only took a small portion of the land, only a fraction of what lay north of the wall and east of the blazeridge. It’s only after the charr continued throwing themselves at the humans and lost their khan that they started losing land, in part due to violent infighting.

Secondly, claiming land because at some point in time some far ancestor called it home isn’t particularly good ethics. Hell, the forgotten have a greater claim on ascalon than the charr in that case. In the end land belongs to those who are born of it, which then were ascalonians and now are modern day charr. The ‘this is charr land’ justification is no more than an excuse for the glorification of their warmongering history.

The charr didn’t attack ascalon out of malace, they attacked it to take back land taken from them, and to avenge an entire GENERATION of their people massacred by humans.

You realize the charr invasion was nearly a millenium after they were driven out? By all accounts it was ancient history by then, especially when you consider the searing was no more than three centuries ago current time.

Similar to modern day Israel. The concept of “homeland” defies time. Given the right environmental push, any culture can go to war.

“Kentigem”-chief. Born cycle of Dusk. Wyld Hunt:
Learn as much mending and medical info as possible so that it can be added to the Dream.
Become the first Chief of Mending and guide the newly awaken as well as those who want to learn.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Daniel Handler.4816

Daniel Handler.4816

What depresses me from the lore is that Malomedies was essentially tortured by Asura until they determined he was sentient. So the race no matter how old it gets will have the potential to be reminded by the dream of this cruel act. The other sad part is that he was firstborn, and this became one of his very first experiences not only of the world, but of anything.

“Kentigem”-chief. Born cycle of Dusk. Wyld Hunt:
Learn as much mending and medical info as possible so that it can be added to the Dream.
Become the first Chief of Mending and guide the newly awaken as well as those who want to learn.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Malkavian.4516

Malkavian.4516

If there is one thing that annoys me the most out of this lore is Faolain herself. From what I understood in the TA story, she didn’t start out evil. Yet, in the Living Story, it seems that she was rotten from the start. Granted, she does care about the saplings that were captured by the asura at the time, but that doesn’t seem to be enough to warrant some likeability. I keep questioning myself: “What does Caithe see in Faolain that makes her girlfriend material?”

FOR SKYRIM!!!!!

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Pyro.4765

Pyro.4765

My contention is merely that the origins of the human charr war are much older than the searing, and netiehr side is innocent. lets leave it at that, saking for vengence on the charr is just going to continue a war of massacre and counter massacure that’s been going on for centuries already, which does no one any good, especuially during a dragon incursion.
P.S. While the charr did take their land from the grawl before them, the difference there is they never tried to completely remove the grawl. You’d still find grawl tribes living in charr territory, you didn’t find any charr villages in Ascalon under human rule.

I’m not saying that I want the war to continue because that would be stupid. No matter how much I think the Charr are in the wrong, the best word to describe their species would be this: necessary. They bring the hardware, the bodies and the bloodlust needed in the war against dragons. I just wish something would wipe the smug self-satisfaction off their muzzles, and know it won’t happen because they’re a playable race now.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Diovid.9506

Diovid.9506

What I think is sad or annoying about Guild Wars lore is that every discussion on Ascalon, Charr and Humans becomes so personal to people.

If there is one thing that annoys me the most out of this lore is Faolain herself. From what I understood in the TA story, she didn’t start out evil. Yet, in the Living Story, it seems that she was rotten from the start. Granted, she does care about the saplings that were captured by the asura at the time, but that doesn’t seem to be enough to warrant some likeability. I keep questioning myself: “What does Caithe see in Faolain that makes her girlfriend material?”

I agree that there is some work to be done on making their relationship believable. However, remember that the living story step is not their start. They had been around for 2 years already. They traveled the world together. I think, supposedly, Faolain’s fall into nightmare was a very gradual one (in contrast to Cadeyrn who was very nightmare-y from the start). Therefore, supposedly, Faolain and Caithe fell in love when Faolain was still a different person. Over time they drifted more and more apart even though their love for eachother was still there. Which is what makes the whole thing so terrible for Caithe. Again, I’m not saying the game is convincing in this regard.

(edited by Diovid.9506)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: prism.4982

prism.4982

I wonder what will happen to her when Mordremoth is slain. If the Nightmare is his influence within the dream then what will become of the Nightmare Court?

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Pyro.4765

Pyro.4765

What I think is sad or annoying about Guild Wars lore is that every discussion on Ascalon, Charr and Humans becomes so personal to people

Oh, sorry. I honestly don’t care that much, I just enjoy the lore more if I can kind of look at things from an in-universe human perspective; doing that makes things feel less dry and academic. If it’s annoying then I’ll stop.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Konig Des Todes.2086

Konig Des Todes.2086

What bothers me so much about lore is that there’s so much kitten inconsistency that just continues to grow, and while there was some with the personal story and open world (which Anet has recently acknowledged and regrets), the vast majority of it comes from the Living World’s “stories”.

You clearly need to look at that lore more closely.

I can say the same to you.

Yes, the charr owned Ascalon before humans, but they conquered Ascalon and, as you put it, ethnically cleansed the entire region. No different than the humans – in fact, they were arguably worse because humans left grawl to live there, while charr enslaved them. There were also dwarves – such as Kathandrax Steelsoul – who fought the charr invasion, and an abandoned dwarven town beneath eastern Ascalon (mentioned in Edge of Destiny novel) that implies that the dwarves lived in Ascalon and the now-called Blood Legion Homelands before the charr invaded from the east.

Furthermore, the human kingdom existed for 1,100 years, whereas the charr rule didn’t even last a generation (the first Khan-Ur being the cause of the advancement of charr society, and the chaos of his death being the reason why charr were pushed back).

The charr were a bronze age tribal society back then, you can’t just double the population in their remaining territory.

If you think that Ascalon and the Blood Legion Homelands are the only lands that they own, you don’t know jack about charr lore. The Blood Citadel (home to the Blood Legion and Blood Imperator Bangar Ruinbringer) is east of the Blazeridge Mountains – not north of Ascalon.

It would be closer to say that a quarter of the population (if that) got shoved into another quarter of their conquered lands.

And given the state of the so-called Blood Legion Homelands in GW1, that did not really affect them nearly as much as you claim.

The charr didn’t attack ascalon out of malace, they attacked it to take back land taken from them, and to avenge an entire GENERATION of their people massacred by humans.

No, the charr attacked Ascalon to reconquer a land they took from others. Basically, they did the same thing twice: conquer and kill/enslave its inhabitants (and yes, charr did enslave humans – and, supposedly, ate them).

Yeah, driven on by the flame legion. Even the charr think the flame legion were out of line there.

Explains why the person who caused the Searing, Bonfaaz Burntfur, is praised as a charr hero who fought and fell the evil human tyrant Prince Rurik.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Quora_Sorrowmuzzle

Not exactly accurate to what truly happened. And proves that the Iron Legion does not condemn the actions Flame Legion led the others to do against the humans.

If there is one thing that annoys me the most out of this lore is Faolain herself. From what I understood in the TA story, she didn’t start out evil. Yet, in the Living Story, it seems that she was rotten from the start. Granted, she does care about the saplings that were captured by the asura at the time, but that doesn’t seem to be enough to warrant some likeability. I keep questioning myself: “What does Caithe see in Faolain that makes her girlfriend material?”

Yeah, the Living World really kittened over Faolain. In the novels and Twilight Arbor, it’s heavily implied – if not outright stated – that Faolain was a good person until she fell to Nightmare. And the thing is, she didn’t fully fall to Nightmare until well after the Nightmare Court’s establishment, nor did she relate to the Court’s rise (Caithe, however, did), however the flashbacks of Season 2 and Caithe’s dialogue at the end outright states that Faolain had a han in the Nightmare Court’s establishment.

Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: DresdenAllblack.1249

DresdenAllblack.1249

In 1945 if the Jewish went and built a gigantic Star of David on Berlin, who could say they were wrong or evil? Genocide is not a trifle act. The Charr were on the brink of extinction and reacted like any other cornered animal would.

Including the human being.

Angelina is free game again.
Crystal Desert

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Lostwingman.5034

Lostwingman.5034

The Charr were on the brink of extinction

Ummm…..huh?

Given the cosmic number of hordes the Charr were able to summon out of the mists evidently to throw at every society under the sun in the time of the Searing…I am skeptical of this claim…

Bad@Ele: Alaric Von Manstein
Bad@Thief: Kiera Gordon
Sea of Sorrows, a server never before so appropriately named.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: DresdenAllblack.1249

DresdenAllblack.1249

We are speaking PRE-searing correct? In the days before Gwen lost her flute.

Angelina is free game again.
Crystal Desert

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Lostwingman.5034

Lostwingman.5034

We are speaking PRE-searing correct? In the days before Gwen lost her flute.

Yea and the Charr were hardly “driven to extinction”. The humans slowly drove them out of a portion of Ascalon over centuries before erecting a wall down the middle. After which the Charr challenged the humans less and less to the point the humans settled past the wall and that was still only in Ascalon. I mean, you do realize the Charr weren’t penned up against the Blazeridge with nowhere else to go right? They didn’t even originate in Ascalon nor did they abandon their previous homeland when they did move to Ascalon. So what are you talking about?

Here’s another map depicting how the portions affected humans were less than that which wasn’t.

Bad@Ele: Alaric Von Manstein
Bad@Thief: Kiera Gordon
Sea of Sorrows, a server never before so appropriately named.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Sarisa.4731

Sarisa.4731

The fate of the seers.

Also, what became of the forgotten after Kormir took our godhood we defeated Abaddon, and Glint was killed.

Lille of the Valley [WHIP]

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Lurinna.4306

Lurinna.4306

If you think that Ascalon and the Blood Legion Homelands are the only lands that they own, you don’t know jack about charr lore. The Blood Citadel (home to the Blood Legion and Blood Imperator Bangar Ruinbringer) is east of the Blazeridge Mountains – not north of Ascalon.

It would be closer to say that a quarter of the population (if that) got shoved into another quarter of their conquered lands.

And given the state of the so-called Blood Legion Homelands in GW1, that did not really affect them nearly as much as you claim.

Is this still canon? The only time I recall lands to the east being mentioned is in the Legions of the Charr article, and that was way early in development – Before they made the change to explicitly define the GW1 Charr lands as being the blood legions home.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

1. Before humanity came with their big mean gods, Ascalon wasn’t even Ascalon. It was just another nameless area the Charr called their own, they didn’t even have any settlements there. The bulk of their land was north and east of the Ascalon Basin. The humans named the land after themselves…i.e. Ascalonians.

2. Humans never “ethnically cleansed” the Charr, they simply fought them out of the basin then let them be. It was the Charr who were bent on human genocide…as evidenced by the massive assault on all 3 human nations at once. They didn’t do that to win back Ascalon, they did it because they wanted all of humanity to burn.

3. The Charr back then were just as much human-haters as the Flame Legion. This idea that the Flame Legion “forced” the other Charr to attack humans is silly. They wrote that in because the Charr are a playable race now and it would be narrative suicide to have a former apex antagonist simply become the good guys overnight. The Flame Legion became one of the fall guys for the new world order of multi-raced Tyria.

4. The Blood Legion Homelands was never in Ascalon. That was literally added in 2013 sometime by ANet. Besides, it would be rather odd given that the legions were formed after the Charr had been pushed out of Ascalon.

5. The nation of Ascalon’s historical borders reached all the way to the north of the basin rim. By the time of the Searing, the Charr had slowly been advancing on the Wall for several decades in preparation of the Searing.


Diovid To answer your first statement…

…That’s because Prophecies was never written with the Charr winning in mind. The author used them as an early antagonist to fuel the back story of Ascalon and little more. In fact, the author intended Ascalon to win the war by the time of Factions, with the Charr fading off the Tyrian stage. Due to the vague and indeterminate writings on the Charr(or lack thereof) after Proph, future writers(EotN and on) used those gaps in the writing to resurrect the Charr into something they were never supposed to be…i.e. good guys. The reason this topic always becomes personal is because of that narrative disconnect. Ascalon was the birthplace of most Guild Wars characters, which were all human and which all knew the Charr would burn you alive if you let them.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that there is a bit of consternation at having a new author come in and not only wipe your nation off the map with a few flicks of his pen, but also hand it to the very creatures who razed your homeland and burned alive your fellow countrymen(and women) by the thousands.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Lurinna.4306

Lurinna.4306

As I understand it, the old proph writer departed and was replaced by some of the people we have today after factions, not nightfall. Just to offer a small correction!

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Lostwingman.5034

Lostwingman.5034

There are so many parallels with the way the meta-story for the Charr has gone with certain actual instances of historical revisionism about barbarity it is almost comical. It’s really for that reason that I primarily find myself in distaste with the Charr as they’ve been made.

3. The Charr back then were just as much human-haters as the Flame Legion. This idea that the Flame Legion “forced” the other Charr to attack humans is silly. They wrote that in because the Charr are a playable race now and it would be narrative suicide to have a former apex antagonist simply become the good guys overnight. The Flame Legion became one of the fall guys for the new world order of multi-raced Tyria.

The parallels really are uncanny.

Bad@Ele: Alaric Von Manstein
Bad@Thief: Kiera Gordon
Sea of Sorrows, a server never before so appropriately named.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: DresdenAllblack.1249

DresdenAllblack.1249

Is that map factual?

It shows Orr connected to Elona. Is Elona really that close? If so I’m confused as to why ANet is sending us in the complete opposite direction

Angelina is free game again.
Crystal Desert

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Aaron Ansari.1604

Aaron Ansari.1604

Is that map factual?

It shows Orr connected to Elona. Is Elona really that close? If so I’m confused as to why ANet is sending us in the complete opposite direction

If you mean the one Lostwingman linked, yes, it is, although the color effects are all fan-made and speculative. We aren’t being sent in that direction simply because ANet doesn’t want to go that way- either they aren’t ready to go to Elona yet, or they think whatever they’ve got for us in the jungle is even better.

R.I.P., Old Man of Auld Red Wharf. Gone but never forgotten.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Lostwingman.5034

Lostwingman.5034

Is that map factual?

It shows Orr connected to Elona. Is Elona really that close? If so I’m confused as to why ANet is sending us in the complete opposite direction

As per my understanding it is a cleaned up and colorized version of a map datamined out of the client. So the geography (coastlines and elevation shading) plus the labels are factual, the colorization there is unofficial.

Bad@Ele: Alaric Von Manstein
Bad@Thief: Kiera Gordon
Sea of Sorrows, a server never before so appropriately named.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: DresdenAllblack.1249

DresdenAllblack.1249

Well, now that I have brushed up my lore of the Maguuma region, and with all these whispers of the Mursaat. I wonder if Anet has the daring to make them the next playable race? Then save the Tengu for the Cantha expac.

Angelina is free game again.
Crystal Desert

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Diovid.9506

Diovid.9506

Well, now that I have brushed up my lore of the Maguuma region, and with all these whispers of the Mursaat. I wonder if Anet has the daring to make them the next playable race? Then save the Tengu for the Cantha expac.

It’s not impossible, though I think it’s unlikely. At least HoT won’t introduce a new race and Anet said that, at least in the near future, they won’t consider adding a new race because they think the work that a new race costs is not worth the benefits.

And if Tengu are added I’m not sure if they are added with Cantha. There are no Tengu left in Cantha. And considering their problems with Primordus I can see Anet adding their city at least with the xpac which deals with the Depths of Tyria.

Diovid To answer your first statement…

…That’s because Prophecies was never written with the Charr winning in mind. The author used them as an early antagonist to fuel the back story of Ascalon and little more. In fact, the author intended Ascalon to win the war by the time of Nightfall, with the Charr fading off the Tyrian stage. Due to the vague and indeterminate writings on the Charr(or lack thereof) after Proph, future writers(EotN and on) used those gaps in the writing to resurrect the Charr into something they were never supposed to be…i.e. good guys. The reason this topic always becomes personal is because of that narrative disconnect. Ascalon was the birthplace of most Guild Wars characters, which were all human and which all knew the Charr would burn you alive if you let them.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that there is a bit of consternation at having a new author come in and not only wipe your nation off the map with a few flicks of his pen, but also hand it to the very creatures who razed your homeland and burned alive your fellow countrymen(and women) by the thousands.

I know the history (I lived it). Maybe it is because I always saw Ascalon as a lost cause that I don’t feel the same. I disagree that Charr were re-written as good guys. They were re-written as being round characters with intelligence, culture and their own point of view instead of as just being mindless beasts. At the same time the human story was re-written as being their side of the story. Neither group is presented as being good guys. If anything both groups are written as being morally grey and I like it that way.

(edited by Diovid.9506)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Daniel Handler.4816

Daniel Handler.4816

There are so many parallels with the way the meta-story for the Charr has gone with certain actual instances of historical revisionism about barbarity it is almost comical. It’s really for that reason that I primarily find myself in distaste with the Charr as they’ve been made.

3. The Charr back then were just as much human-haters as the Flame Legion. This idea that the Flame Legion “forced” the other Charr to attack humans is silly. They wrote that in because the Charr are a playable race now and it would be narrative suicide to have any former apex antagonist simply become the good guys overnight. The Flame Legion became one of the fall guys for the new world order of multi-raced Tyria.

The parallels really are uncanny.

This whole theory requires the lands east of the blood-legion homelands to be arable, and not already inhabitated. It also assumes the Charr birthrate is low enough they could survive being contained to the BL homelands.

I can also make historical parallels here..

When the French lost the French and Indian war their control over the US was limited to the area known as Louisiana. This area ran down the center of the country. Years later the land was purchased from them in the Louisiana Purchase. However what would the life of the French be like if they stayed? Just like the BL homelands, their access to coastline was still there, but severely reduced from its previous amount. All lands that bordered theirs were owned. Picture the middle of the US a country right now. And who knows that the then US would even have allowed it. The US was operating under manifest destiny, they felt they had the rights by Divine Providence to expand, sound familiar?

PS. The argument of who killed Grawl is irrelevant. The humans in settling the southern coast of Elonan, and east coast of the US, displaced whatever natives were there. The British hadn’t originally settled New France, and the Elonians hadn’t originally settled Ascalon, but both felt their right to displace secondary settlers.

“Kentigem”-chief. Born cycle of Dusk. Wyld Hunt:
Learn as much mending and medical info as possible so that it can be added to the Dream.
Become the first Chief of Mending and guide the newly awaken as well as those who want to learn.

(edited by Daniel Handler.4816)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Lostwingman.5034

Lostwingman.5034

This whole theory requires the lands east of the blood-legion homelands to be arable, and not already inhabitated. It also assumes the Charr birthrate is low enough they could survive being contained to the BL homelands.

Given that they had enough to overrun a dug in Ascalon over the course of decades (the wall largely held for a few years after the Searing it just had holed in places), send a force capable of threatening Kryta to the point that the King abandons the country in fear, and yet another force of similar size to Orr, we are all but outright told that the Charr were just fine creating a large population pool.

I can also make historical parallels here..

When the French lost the French and Indian war their control over the US was limited to the area known as Louisiana. This area ran down the center of the country. Years later the land was purchased from them in the Louisiana Purchase. However what would the life of the French be like if they stayed? Just like the BL homelands, their access to coastline was still there, but severely reduced from its previous amount. All lands that bordered theirs were owned. Picture the middle of the US a country right now. And who knows that the then US would even have allowed it. The US was operating under manifest destiny, they felt they had the rights by Divine Providence to expand, sound familiar?

Erm, what? This parallel absolutely does not work. For one, the Charr originated from and never left where the Ascalonians drove them back towards. This would only work if the French had originated in the territory of the Louisiana Purchase, had moved into Quebec, then been pushed back out shortly later by the newly arriving British.

Also I don’t think you understand Manifest Destiny. It was not a religiously motivated or faith formed idea. It was a belief in the national and social superiority of the American nation to rule the rest of the continent. For note, the term historically really came to the forefront from the tensions of the Mexican-American war as justification and propaganda.

PS. The argument of who killed Grawl is irrelevant.

It depends on the topic and the frame and here it is relevant since the argument “the Charr were there first” and “it’s rightfully the Charr’s by way of earlier settlement” falls on it’s face when Grawl cultures (and has been mentioned, dwarves) lived there.

The humans in settling the southern coast of Elonan, and east coast of the US, displaced whatever natives were there. The British hadn’t originally settled New France, and the Elonians hadn’t originally settled Ascalon, but both felt their right to displace secondary settlers.

Which misses the fallacies of “these Charr were different!” and “they were totally justified!” arguments.

Bad@Ele: Alaric Von Manstein
Bad@Thief: Kiera Gordon
Sea of Sorrows, a server never before so appropriately named.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: DresdenAllblack.1249

DresdenAllblack.1249

Why place the Dominion of the Winds there at all then? Are the Tengu simply there for background fluff? I think they were all set to be a playable race and Anet pulled back, like Bungie to sell back to us at a later date.

I worry though that with Southsun Cove, Kessex Hills, and Calendon already cleared, how could their home city work now as a starting point?

Angelina is free game again.
Crystal Desert

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Diovid.9506

Diovid.9506

Why place the Dominion of the Winds there at all then? Are the Tengu simply there for background fluff? I think they were all set to be a playable race and Anet pulled back, like Bungie to sell back to us at a later date.

I worry though that with Southsun Cove, Kessex Hills, and Calendon already cleared, how could their home city work now as a starting point?

It’s a known fact that Tengu were considered as a playable race at one point in the development of the game, yes. However, we don’t know how far the development of them was. It might be that the entire idea was permanently shelved. But, like you, I still hope that one day the Tengu will be added as a playable race.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: DresdenAllblack.1249

DresdenAllblack.1249

Actually, I answered my question. The gate at LA that is guarded by Tengu does not lead directly to the DotW. So there is room for a starter zone then LA where the docks can take you anywhere after.

Angelina is free game again.
Crystal Desert

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Pyro.4765

Pyro.4765

Why place the Dominion of the Winds there at all then? Are the Tengu simply there for background fluff? I think they were all set to be a playable race and Anet pulled back, like Bungie to sell back to us at a later date.

I worry though that with Southsun Cove, Kessex Hills, and Calendon already cleared, how could their home city work now as a starting point?

Well, there’s a Destroyer incursion in their city. So there could be a portion of their city which acts like a PvE zone, full of Destroyers and whatever the Sons of Svanir/Inquest/Bandit/etc equivalent ends up being.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

As I understand it, the old proph writer departed and was replaced by some of the people we have today after factions, not nightfall. Just to offer a small correction!

You’re right, I wrote the wrong campaign down. It was Factions like you said.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Neither group is presented as being good guys. If anything both groups are written as being morally grey and I like it that way.

Which groups??

In GW2, most Charr feel neither responsible nor sympathetic to the Searing. And most Krytan humans harbor no blame or ill-will to them. If you’re a Charr these days and want to finish off Ebonhawke you’re doing it wrong, and if you’re an Ascalonian these days and want to reclaim your homeland you’re doing it wrong. There’s zero argument about that according to ANet, they’ve made that abundantly clear through side narratives and relevant quests in the region.

How is that morally grey?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Is that map factual?

It shows Orr connected to Elona. Is Elona really that close? If so I’m confused as to why ANet is sending us in the complete opposite direction

It’s a fan-made map, so I would say no.

But…it would be more factual to say Orr was connected to the Crystal Desert, which was adjacent to Elona.

ANet is sending us in the opposite direction because they haven’t yet figured out how to introduce the playerbase to more human lands. You see, GW2 ANet must have equilibrium between the races. That means all five races should be generally equal is size, status, and power so as to not alienate any one race for us players. If we went to Elona or Cantha, they would have to find some way to make the other 4 non-human races relevant to the whole campaign…which is a huge headache considering none of them have any history there. Why go through all that trouble when you’ve got a massive blank slate to the west? It’s a simple marketing decision made to keep current GW2 players happy, history be darned.

Incidentally, it’s the same reason ANet gave Ascalon to the Charr. They could have just have easily developed all that Charr territory north and east of the Ascalon Basin, but that would mean humans would be the only race with 2 kingdoms(with Kryta). And that just doesn’t jive with the GW2 narrative. So they kill two birds with one stone by coming up with a huge back-story to “validly” remove humans from Ascalon and replace them with Charr. Easy peasy.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Daniel Handler.4816

Daniel Handler.4816

This whole theory requires the lands east of the blood-legion homelands to be arable, and not already inhabitated. It also assumes the Charr birthrate is low enough they could survive being contained to the BL homelands.

Given that they had enough to overrun a dug in Ascalon over the course of decades (the wall largely held for a few years after the Searing it just had holed in places), send a force capable of threatening Kryta to the point that the King abandons the country in fear, and yet another force of similar size to Orr, we are all but outright told that the Charr were just fine creating a large population pool.

I can also make historical parallels here..

When the French lost the French and Indian war their control over the US was limited to the area known as Louisiana. This area ran down the center of the country. Years later the land was purchased from them in the Louisiana Purchase. However what would the life of the French be like if they stayed? Just like the BL homelands, their access to coastline was still there, but severely reduced from its previous amount. All lands that bordered theirs were owned. Picture the middle of the US a country right now. And who knows that the then US would even have allowed it. The US was operating under manifest destiny, they felt they had the rights by Divine Providence to expand, sound familiar?

Erm, what? This parallel absolutely does not work. For one, the Charr originated from and never left where the Ascalonians drove them back towards. This would only work if the French had originated in the territory of the Louisiana Purchase, had moved into Quebec, then been pushed back out shortly later by the newly arriving British.

Also I don’t think you understand Manifest Destiny. It was not a religiously motivated or faith formed idea. It was a belief in the national and social superiority of the American nation to rule the rest of the continent. For note, the term historically really came to the forefront from the tensions of the Mexican-American war as justification and propaganda.

PS. The argument of who killed Grawl is irrelevant.

It depends on the topic and the frame and here it is relevant since the argument “the Charr were there first” and “it’s rightfully the Charr’s by way of earlier settlement” falls on it’s face when Grawl cultures (and has been mentioned, dwarves) lived there.

The humans in settling the southern coast of Elonan, and east coast of the US, displaced whatever natives were there. The British hadn’t originally settled New France, and the Elonians hadn’t originally settled Ascalon, but both felt their right to displace secondary settlers.

Which misses the fallacies of “these Charr were different!” and “they were totally justified!” arguments.

You first paragraph makes no sense as it contributes to my argument. Forcing charr to BL would primarily be bad if they had a large population. When I said “this” I was referring to your theories. The very fact they started to push outward probably meant they were getting crowded.

Your second paragraph was you not understanding the comparison. The louisiana purchase is the bloodland homelands, the area seized after the F&I war was not that land. The area of New France had most of its eastern land taken. There were only left with Louisiana and they were pressed on all sides by foreign kingdoms. Sound similar?

Your correction on manifest destiny is utterly wrong. And can easily be found wrong by researching the term. The social and national superiority was granted by Providence.

Last two paragraphs. They were both secondary settlers, and then a tertiary settlement took place. It would be like if we invaded Canada.

“Kentigem”-chief. Born cycle of Dusk. Wyld Hunt:
Learn as much mending and medical info as possible so that it can be added to the Dream.
Become the first Chief of Mending and guide the newly awaken as well as those who want to learn.

(edited by Daniel Handler.4816)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

You first paragraph makes no sense as it contributes to my argument. Forcing charr to BL would primarily be bad if they had a large population. When I said “this” I was referring to your theories. The very fact they started to push outward probably meant they were getting crowded.

Pure speculation. The Charr loved to wage war, and probably moved whole armies to engage the upstart humans trekking into their basin.

Your second paragraph was you not understanding the comparison. The louisiana purchase is the bloodland homelands, the area seized after the F&I war was not that land. The area of New France had most of its eastern land taken. There were only left with Louisiana and they were pressed on all sides by foreign kingdoms. Sound similar?

I don’t know what you’re talking about here, when were the Charr in Ascalon “pressed on all sides by foreign kingdoms”??

They were both secondary settlers, and then a tertiary settlement took place. It would be like if we invaded Canada.

…except that the Charr never settled Ascalon, they merely called it their own. They were semi-nomadic, as is typified by their inspirational RL culture: the Mongols. Like I said before, ANet didn’t declare Ascalon to be BL homeland until sometime in 2013. So it’s rather silly to claim something written 8 years after the fact should retroactively become factual.

I mean, all they’d have to do to validate it is come up with some outlandish claim that everything we see, hear, and read in GW1 was entirely human bias and unfounded.

Oh wait…

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Daniel Handler.4816

Daniel Handler.4816

Yes. Which is why when things are pure speculation. It’s best not to make sweeping definite statements, and is why I like the word probably. I see you used it recently, do that more often.

Semi nomadic does not matter in any context. Unless you want to say Native Americans didn’t settle America.

We are bound to ANET’s writing. I won’t hear any argument that discusses retcons as they aren’t canon arguments. Absolutely nothing is silly because it was written 8 years later, @see improved medical textbooks.

“Kentigem”-chief. Born cycle of Dusk. Wyld Hunt:
Learn as much mending and medical info as possible so that it can be added to the Dream.
Become the first Chief of Mending and guide the newly awaken as well as those who want to learn.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

We are bound to ANET’s writing. I won’t hear any argument that discusses retcons as they aren’t canon arguments. Absolutely nothing is silly because it was written 8 years later, @see improved medical textbooks.

You may be bound to it, I’m certainly not. I’m bound to a writer’s writing. Citing medical textbooks is silly because those textbooks are based on science and new science comes out everyday to challenge old claims. Fictional writing has nothing to do with scientific facts. Its “truth” is completely in the mind of the writer, not the company or anyone else.

Tell me, which X-men narrative is canon? The original comic series, or the latest fad movie out in theatres? Companies retcon all the time in order to make a buck, ANet is no different.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: JohnLShannonhouse.1820

JohnLShannonhouse.1820

Using GW2 names, these were the maps where you found centaurs in GW1:
Brisban Wildlands
Snowden Drifts
Lornar’s Pass
Wayfarer Foothills

This is where you did not find centaurs:
Anywhere in Kryta

Despite the fact that nobody apparently drove them out of Brisban, there are no centaurs there. Despite the fact there is no previous lore basis for being in Kryta, the centaurs are hell-bent on taking Kryta.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense for centaurs to be antagonists of the Asura and Norn now? It is like they are abandoning old lands to chase humans.

It is explained that centaurs were driven out of Kryta long before GW1. Okay, but why are they now so determined to take Kryta compared to other places? Why did the Harathi abandon Maguuma? Why did the Shiverpeak centaurs abandon Lornar’s and Wayfarer’s?

There are myriads of possible explanations, of course, but the the geographic shift and abandonment of whole regions has gone unaddressed.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

It is explained that centaurs were driven out of Kryta long before GW1. Okay, but why are they now so determined to take Kryta compared to other places? Why did the Harathi abandon Maguuma? Why did the Shiverpeak centaurs abandon Lornar’s and Wayfarer’s?

Because it’s part of ANet’s narrative explanation for why humanity crumbled down to one nation. Remember, they need racial parity for all races in GW2, so humans have to take a nose dive in order for that to happen.

Of the well-known GW1 human nations/cultures, only Orr fell before GW1 events(not counting pre-Searing here). The rest all fall off the map between games:

  • Istan, Kourna, and Vabbi all fell to Joko.
  • Cantha, Luxon, and Kurzick all became absolute isolationists.
  • and Ascalon became Charr land.

The centaurs were just a convenient group to use for a neat-o local antagonist for Kryta. Besides, if the Charr can use a vague thousand-year-old grudge to validate land claims and a never-ending war, why can’t the Centaurs? ;-)

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Konig Des Todes.2086

Konig Des Todes.2086

They weren’t in Brisban Wildlands but further west, and the Maguuma Jungle drying up is what drove them out (along with an alliance with the Modniir – shiverpeak centaurs – which we see the earliest signs of in Prophecies – specifically The Wilds bonus mission). It’s also a well-established piece of lore from the days of Prophecies that centaurs and humans were at odds to each other for a long time (Ventari being a veteran of the human-centaur conflict which was at a low point during GW1 as the focus was on other plots, e.g., undead and White Mantle).

Okay, but why are they now so determined to take Kryta compared to other places? Why did the Harathi abandon Maguuma? Why did the Shiverpeak centaurs abandon Lornar’s and Wayfarer’s?

  1. Kryta was originally theirs. Asking why theyr’e so determined to take it is like why Jews were so determined to return to Israel. Furthermore, Kryta is the only land which can support the centaur race because…
  2. Because the Maguuma is now an arid wasteland and cannot support their numbers anylonger. Just go to Silverwastes – once called Silverwood, and the main land of the Harathi.
  3. Because Jormag’s been pushing the Modniir south, just like he did the kodan, quaggan, and norn. And they weren’t in Lornar’s Pass before – they were in the modern equivalent of Snowden Drifts, northern Wayfarer’s, and eastern Frostgorge Forge (and further north than we can explore). When they were pushed south by Jormag, they were also pushed westward because norn took the eastern 80% of the Shiverpeaks.

Also, there is conflict between centaurs and norn – it’s just not so highlighted as the human-centaur (in fact, it’s barely brought up – originally, you could only find such mention in three locations, one of which being the personal story for norn who chose lost a fight; with Fort Salma destroyed, one of those mentions is gone, however; the third is the centaur presence in Snowden Drifts). Centaurs hate humans more than they hate norn – as only the Modniir have a problem with the norn, not the Harathi or Tamini.

Dear ANet writers,
Stop treating GW2 as a single story. Each Season and expansion should be their own story.

Which parts of the lore annoy or depress you?

in Lore

Posted by: Daniel Handler.4816

Daniel Handler.4816

We are bound to ANET’s writing. I won’t hear any argument that discusses retcons as they aren’t canon arguments. Absolutely nothing is silly because it was written 8 years later, @see improved medical textbooks.

You may be bound to it, I’m certainly not. I’m bound to a writer’s writing. Citing medical textbooks is silly because those textbooks are based on science and new science comes out everyday to challenge old claims. Fictional writing has nothing to do with scientific facts. Its “truth” is completely in the mind of the writer, not the company or anyone else.

Tell me, which X-men narrative is canon? The original comic series, or the latest fad movie out in theatres? Companies retcon all the time in order to make a buck, ANet is no different.

This makes no sense. Marvel operates under a multiverse concept, both are canon. But when we make claims about a Universe we only use the Universe we are talking about. Which I why I can’t claim that Havok and Cycylops are related in the MovieVerse. And just like a medical textbook new “facts” come out to challenge old claims.

You sound like the people who don’t take lore from the letters of Tolkien as canon because he didn’t put them in the books.

Also you are bound to a writers writing. And as ANET are the writers you are bound to any and all changes they make. Your comment on writers switching is a silly as a Christian saying they didn’t believe in anything that wasn’t in the book of Matthew.

“Kentigem”-chief. Born cycle of Dusk. Wyld Hunt:
Learn as much mending and medical info as possible so that it can be added to the Dream.
Become the first Chief of Mending and guide the newly awaken as well as those who want to learn.