Guild Wars 2

As Guild Wars one player, it is the hardest of all to hate former allies like that. Not because they were human, because there are a lot of criminal, corrupt or racist humans in the game to fight. It is because of the situation. The fact that they are fighting for what they think is there homeland versus the Charr and anyone else not an Ascalonian.

It is true that Ascalon was Charr land before human encroachment, but the fight to claim land will always exist no matter who was there first or in the right. Once people make a home they never want to leave it.

When the hero of Prophecies and others follow the prince out of Ascalon, it was a tough decision. The king was too stubborn to admit the war was ending and that he had lost. Leaving ones home is not easy, even if the prince did so to save lives. Making a dangerous trek through the mountains or fight the Charr to the death for what you built? There is no right call. Both the king and prince took big risks with an already post apocalypse Ascalon population.

So now the ghosts are punished for loyalty to the king and home land, even if the king and home land could be argued to be in the wrong. I view this as tragic. Clearly they have all become mad and destructive fighting for a dead cause that even most humans have long since left. They must be put to rest now. It’s still hard to hate them though.

There is a term called tragic villain and that would be fitting here.

I do feel bad for them. It may have been Charr land originally, but by the time of the final battle, the humans had all been born there and had known no other home (if I understand correctly, as I was not a GW1 player). The ordinary people of Ascalon were caught in a no-win situation, it seems to me. My human is supposed to be descended from survivors of Ascalon, so he avoids fighting the ghosts, and flatly will not if it benefits the Charr. They wanted the land back so badly, let them enjoy it (yes, he’s not nice on that score).

Not really. Like you said, the land was the Charr’s and then the humans came in and drove them out. The Charr then return the favor. That makes it tough for me to feel sorry for them.

I just don’t see it that way. Yes, the founders of Ascalon drove the Charr out. Over 1000 years later, the lucky humans escaped, the unlucky one were not only killed, but condemned to unliving madness, because they were born in the wrong place and had the wrong ruler. If I’m supposed to feel sorry for every sylvari that gets a hangnail, I think I can spare some sympathy for people who have been suffering for 200 years because of where their ancestors went 40 generations ago.

As a side note, I find it a little odd that sylvari, a 25 year old race, has spread all over and claimed quite a bit of territory, and no one seems to mind. I’ll need to go post in another forum about that.

Yeah we disagree. The humans there did nothing wrong and got caught in the crossfire. The Charr obviously have been stewing over this for 1000 years. Maybe that’s too long a time to hold a grudge. They obviously don’t think so. And unless the Charr live to be that old, this need to get revenge has been passed down among several generations. Were the humans living with that much grief? I don’t know, but I can guess.

Tragic Villain? Who? Adelbern?

Adelbern was a powerhungry dictator who would refuse to do what would be best for the people of Ascalon which was to move away from a burned, inhospitable and hostile land, to Kryta. This mad king would not leave Ascalon because in Kryta he would no longer be the ruler of any land and he would rather sacrifice the people of Ascalon, that had remained loyal to him despite everything, then take of his crown. As ghosts he could rule them forever.

On a side note, the Charr didn’t seek to reclaim lands they lived in, they just sought war. It’s what they are, it’s all they know. They can not live without fighting, if they don’t fight each other, they wage war against any race that happens to live next to them. Before humans lived in Ascalon, the only reason they Charr were passing through Ascalon was because the were at war against the Forgotten Ones.

If it helps, fighting the ghosts in an attempt to put them to rest is the most merciful thing you can do for them now. They’re essentially trapped in their own memories, forever reliving events from their lives even though the world has long since moved on. They can’t see you, they can’t hear you (or if they do, they interpret it through their own garbled world view), and there’s no way you can reason with them. They’re a tragic legacy of a tragic part of history, but letting the ghosts just keep Ascalon and brood forever in their own madness isn’t helping them either.

frans.8092:

On a side note, the Charr didn’t seek to reclaim lands they lived in, they just sought war. It’s what they are, it’s all they know. They can not live without fighting, if they don’t fight each other, they wage war against any race that happens to live next to them. Before humans lived in Ascalon, the only reason they Charr were passing through Ascalon was because the were at war against the Forgotten Ones.

That’s not true at all. The Charr fight the humans in Ebonhold because they’re the last vestige of human occupancy in Ascalon. If they really just wanted war, there are plenty of other races out there to fight. But they’re not, just humans and just in Ascalon. Also, they don’t fight each other like you think. The Flame Legion brought some corrupt gods to the Charr and were leading them astray. The other legions fought back & drove out the gods. Also, female Charr rose up and took their place next to the males, something that happens in every society on Earth (if possible). They are bread for battle because that has been their life for generations.

The Charr may have owned the land 1000 years ago but, it was a 1000 years ago by the time the charr returned to take it back generations of humans called that land their home. Its not like they have a shortage of land considering the blood legion have their own homeland and the ash legion most likely has one aswell.

I do feel bad. What Abeldern did was terrible and now everyone there’s tortured and insane.

The Searing was just as wrong but that’s not who the charr are now any more than the humans are Abeldern’s scorched earth policy. Humans can live again in Ascalon but it’ll be along side the charr and (thanks to Tybalt mostly) I think that’s good.

I don’t ever feel bad for people to make epic bad choices in life. It’s one thing to slip up, its another thing entirely to kitten an entire species of human because of your own twisted ideals.

(Quote links disappeared, again)

‘’That’s not true at all. The Charr fight the humans in Ebonhold because they’re the last vestige of human occupancy in Ascalon. If they really just wanted war, there are plenty of other races out there to fight. But they’re not, just humans and just in Ascalon. ’’

The Charr fought the Forgotten Ones in the crystal desert, long before the humans set foot in Ascalon. They invaded Kryta, where they had no business and they pressed on to Orr after The Searing. And they plundered the homesteads of Norn living near. They made few friends anywhere.

“Also, they don’t fight each other like you think. The Flame Legion brought some corrupt gods to the Charr and were leading them astray. The other legions fought back & drove out the gods.”
No, whenever the Charr unite they fight other nations, when they’re not united they fight each other. There were no corrupt gods, these were Titans, captured by the Flame Legion and posed as Gods for the Charr, as a balance against the human gods, uniting the Charr once more.
And the ones to dethrone these false gods was an Ebon Vanguard heroin and an assorted group of nearly all races (humans, asura, norn, charr and dwarves) that did so.

" They are bread for battle because that has been their life for generations."
So, in the end, they do not know, or did not know, anything other then battle.

Never liked the Charr and if I get the chance to work with the ghosts, I will, to free Ascalon and rebuild The Wall!

frans.8092:

(Quote links disappeared, again)

‘’That’s not true at all. The Charr fight the humans in Ebonhold because they’re the last vestige of human occupancy in Ascalon. If they really just wanted war, there are plenty of other races out there to fight. But they’re not, just humans and just in Ascalon. ’’

The Charr fought the Forgotten Ones in the crystal desert, long before the humans set foot in Ascalon. They invaded Kryta, where they had no business and they pressed on to Orr after The Searing. And they plundered the homesteads of Norn living near. They made few friends anywhere.

“Also, they don’t fight each other like you think. The Flame Legion brought some corrupt gods to the Charr and were leading them astray. The other legions fought back & drove out the gods.”
No, whenever the Charr unite they fight other nations, when they’re not united they fight each other. There were no corrupt gods, these were Titans, captured by the Flame Legion and posed as Gods for the Charr, as a balance against the human gods, uniting the Charr once more.
And the ones to dethrone these false gods was an Ebon Vanguard heroin and an assorted group of nearly all races (humans, asura, norn, charr and dwarves) that did so.

" They are bread for battle because that has been their life for generations."
So, in the end, they do not know, or did not know, anything other then battle.

But the thing is, the Charr society evolved when they broke free from the Flame Legion’s rule. Casted them out. rather than believe in Gods, they took fate into their own hands and became the large military might they are now. They’re no longer savages as before but professional. They only wage wars that benefits them. They will ally with other races if it benefits them. There are a lot of NPC Charr around the world that believe the war against the humans was pointless and was relieved that the treaty was finally signed and can focus their other fronts against the Branded and the Flame Legion to protect their people. They fought because it was their duty as soldiers.

Even some humans prefer the organization of structure of the Charr. One stood out in Gladium’s Canton. He used to be a trader before being captured near Ebonhawke and brought to the Black Citadel though he wasn’t jailed. After the treaty was signed he was released but rather than going back to trading, he stayed and became a crafter’s apprentice. That probably goes with the other human, asura, and sylvari plebians that live in the Citadel also. Don’t forget that the Charr are also allowing humans to set up outposts outside the Ebonhawke lands. Both sides believe that their war was wrong, especially when it was just blind hatred that caused it.

Shame that it took the awaken of the Dragons to make them realize this.

On topic about the ghosts. I feel sorry for both sides ghosts and Charr. In a sense, they’re both still fighting the war that caused Ascalon to burn. Reliving the past.

Humans! Humans! Humans!

Burn the Charr! Burn the Charr! Burn the Charr!

not really charrs are cool (tybalt is cool)

i do feel bad for the humans though.

I do feel bad for the human ghosts. Because my GW1 character was born in Ascalon, according to lore.

But sometimes I want to kill them! They often kill my character. xD

I don’t like to walk around the ruins of Old Ascalon. The fate of the characters from GW1 makes me sad. But I also see this as a great opportunity. I’d love to help put the ghosts to rest, it would be so fitting for an Ascalonian descendant to finally deal with the past of his nation.

I feel sorry for all the ghosts except Adelbern. They were just trying to live their lives or (as soldiers) do their jobs, and their leader condemned them to a torment worse than death that they did nothing to deserve.

Adelbern brought his own fate on himself, as I see it. The others were victims of something they had no control over.

The Searing was wrong. The Foefire was wrong too. All the sentient races in Tyria are capable of evil.

That said, the only thing we can really do for the ghosts now is to lay them to rest. I don’t hate them, though, I feel sorry for them and see it as mercy killing.

First time I’ve seen in-game prejudice against other races. We did take over their land first, so taking it back would be like native americans taking back NA.

For the ghosts as a whole? Yes

But for Adelbern? Dear god no, I hated everything about him in GW1 and I am glad he is suffering. I just wish he did not take Ascalon along with him.

Celestina pretty much sums up my feelings.

GaseousMask.3018:

But the thing is, the Charr society evolved when they broke free from the Flame Legion’s rule.

Definitely, Charr culture and society appears to be maturing fast.

On topic about the ghosts. I feel sorry for both sides ghosts and Charr. In a sense, they’re both still fighting the war that caused Ascalon to burn. Reliving the past.

Combined with the change of the Charr this could be a good in-character motivation to help the Charr in Old Ascalon and fight the ghosts.

They are dead , so i just kill them again.

Well … i would kill them just the same if they were alive.

Their loyalty does not give me items … theirs head do.

I feel bad for them too. Main reason is that they were just like “you and I”, warriors/mages/whatever class living their lives and doing their duty. Being condemned to being an insane ghost sucks. It’s one thing to be defeated and die but to be haunting one place forever without sanity sucks. But this is just on the surface.

Just like for actual deaths… it is mainly the feelings of those who are still alive and facing the tragedy that it affects. Those who are gone are gone, these ghosts are gone and no longer sane. They don’t have these same feelings anymore I’d think.

I don’t think how you feel bad for these ghosts has anything to do with the whole political and military situation/history. In any land, there is always war, those who invade and call it their home and then someone else who invades. Who can say who was there first? What about before it belonged to the Charr? Land does not belong to anyone. Land is land, nature is nature. There will be conquest and defeat.

So feel bad for them not because of the situation but because they had once been living perhaps.

“Those who live by the sword die by the sword”

I don’t feel sorry for them for being conquered but for being cursed. The humans of Ascalon were judged by their own rules of conquest. if invaders decide that might makes right, great, but you can’t blame the invaded people for retaliating in the same way.

The ghost are more tragic I think. I liked them though, especially when you meet characters from gw1 that repeat the things they also said in 1.

The humans of Ascalon were judged by their own rules of conquest.

Many of the humans caught in the Foefire were just civilians who had no part in any conquests. In the book, we see ghosts who were shepherds and farmers in life, and in the game there are plenty of ghosts marked “peasant.” Not all of them were even soldiers.

And are you talking about when humans originally conquered Ascalon? None of the humans alive at the time of the Foefire (or even the Searing) had even been born then. It would have been their distant ancestors.

As I keep pointing out on this forum, Charr also were not the original inhabitants of Ascalon – they just took it in a somewhat earlier conquest, during the time of the first Khan-Ur.

It’s not a fair standard to hold people responsible for the deeds of their ancestors which they had no control over. Nor does it make practical or moral sense to say any group has the right to take back any land their nation ever controlled, by whatever means are expedient. If we are arguing original habitation as the primary claim, the Charr have no claim on Ascalon either.

Most of the Foefire victims did nothing to deserve their fate.

Anakita Snakecharm.4360:

The humans of Ascalon were judged by their own rules of conquest.

Many of the humans caught in the Foefire were just civilians who had no part in any conquests. In the book, we see ghosts who were shepherds and farmers in life, and in the game there are plenty of ghosts marked “peasant.” Not all of them were even soldiers.

And are you talking about when humans originally conquered Ascalon? None of the humans alive at the time of the Foefire (or even the Searing) had even been born then. It would have been their distant ancestors.

As I keep pointing out on this forum, Charr also were not the original inhabitants of Ascalon – they just took it in a somewhat earlier conquest, during the time of the first Khan-Ur.

It’s not a fair standard to hold people responsible for the deeds of their ancestors which they had no control over. Nor does it make practical or moral sense to say any group has the right to take back any land their nation ever controlled, by whatever means are expedient. If we are arguing original habitation as the primary claim, the Charr have no claim on Ascalon either.

Most of the Foefire victims did nothing to deserve their fate.

it’s all moot. The human nation set a standard of might makes right. Maybe the charr did it to someone else, maybe not. either way the standardis might makes right. No ones holding civilians responsible for their ancestos. They are simply abiding by the rules of the land. That rule is war and war is hell.

In fact, i said it fine if the standard is might makes right. My issue is that you can’t blame the charr, as I said in my post.

The humans hardly set that standard. They weren’t in the business of conquest, they merely wanted to keep their lands. I mean, the gods themselves specifically brought the humans to Ascalon to settle. The humans were just defending territory they thought was rightly bestowed upon them by Dwayna and the others. The Charr on the other hand, were in Ascalon because that’s where their warmongering had carried them. After the Forgotten had been driven off, the Charr were still around the area…probably itching for someone else to beat on.

The real culprit in all this mess is the gods themselves. They wedged the humans into a volatile area, then left them to figure it out on their own. Tyrian gods, like Greek gods, are not perfect. They make mistakes(see Abbadon). Unfortunately, this mistake has to be paid for eternity by the Ghosts of Ascalon.

The human nation set a standard of might makes right.

Wait – your response to my pointing out that the Charr were the conquerors of Ascalon first, was that humans set the standard that might makes right? That doesn’t even follow. Did you mean to say the Charr did and just made a typo? Because if we’re talking about who took Ascalon by force first and established (if it exists) a “law of the land,” that would be the Charr.

Either way, I don’t think that standard ever reaches a workable conclusion. By that standard every nation has set the principle that might makes right by some action someone did somewhere back in history, and it is thus right to destroy the civilians of any nation for any reason at any time. Moral issues aside, that’s impractical.

Also, if all that matters is the spread of a population and the means are irrelevant, the biggest current offender nation is… um… the Sylvari. They’re moving into territory at a very rapid clip, taking in a generation what other nations took in centuries. Morally, though, the Sylvari just existing doesn’t compare to a deliberate attack like the Searing (or the Foefire.)

I will be honest that what this discussion often seems to boil down to is people suggesting that the Charr should be held to a different standard than anyone else, and that whether something is right or wrong depends more on whether the Charr are on the giving or receiving end rather than the action itself.

Obsidian.1328:

The humans hardly set that standard. They weren’t in the business of conquest, they merely wanted to keep their lands. I mean, the gods themselves specifically brought the humans to Ascalon to settle. The humans were just defending territory they thought was rightly bestowed upon them by Dwayna and the others. The Charr on the other hand, were in Ascalon because that’s where their warmongering had carried them. After the Forgotten had been driven off, the Charr were still around the area…probably itching for someone else to beat on.

The real culprit in all this mess is the gods themselves. They wedged the humans into a volatile area, then left them to figure it out on their own. Tyrian gods, like Greek gods, are not perfect. They make mistakes(see Abbadon). Unfortunately, this mistake has to be paid for eternity by the Ghosts of Ascalon.

The humans did set that standard. that’s how they got that land. I’m not sure that we know the charr took that land from anyone first or if it was open land when they got there but yes, the humans definatly set that standard when they got there.

Anakita Snakecharm.4360:

The human nation set a standard of might makes right.

Wait – your response to my pointing out that the Charr were the conquerors of Ascalon first, was that humans set the standard that might makes right? That doesn’t even follow. Did you mean to say the Charr did and just made a typo? Because if we’re talking about who took Ascalon by force first and established (if it exists) a “law of the land,” that would be the Charr.

Either way, I don’t think that standard ever reaches a workable conclusion. By that standard every nation has set the principle that might makes right by some action someone did somewhere back in history, and it is thus right to destroy the civilians of any nation for any reason at any time. Moral issues aside, that’s impractical.

Also, if all that matters is the spread of a population and the means are irrelevant, the biggest current offender nation is… um… the Sylvari. They’re moving into territory at a very rapid clip, taking in a generation what other nations took in centuries. Morally, though, the Sylvari just existing doesn’t compare to a deliberate attack like the Searing (or the Foefire.)

I will be honest that what this discussion often seems to boil down to is people suggesting that the Charr should be held to a different standard than anyone else, and that whether something is right or wrong depends more on whether the Charr are on the giving or receiving end rather than the action itself.

First of all, I don’t think it’s been confirmed that the charr conquered that specific land first. If they had it wasn’t from humans so yes, that is my response because thta’s exactly what the humans did.

Secondly, that standard was acceptable by the humans. Acceptable by the charr. ANY sympathy you would give to the “innocent civilian humans” you will have to give to the charr when the humans got there. So, now wether it’s right or wrong is dependant upon whether it happens to the humans. hmmm.

Back to MY point. What the humans did was fine. What the charr did was fine. if You punch someone in the face, no matter how many other they had punched in their own lifetime, you can probably expect that they are going to punch you in the face as well, given the oportunity. especially if they are known for punching others. (Which they weren’t, as far as the humans knew).

So, do I feel sorry for a human nation that brought catasrophy upon itself? No. Do I feel sorry for a charr nation that brought catastophy upon itself with the flame legion? No. Do i commend the charr for solving their problem of the catastrophy they brought on themselves? Yea.

Dustfinger.9510:

First of all, I don’t think it’s been confirmed that the charr conquered that specific land first. If they had it wasn’t from humans so yes, that is my response because thta’s exactly what the humans did.

I can see why we may be talking at cross purposes, then. From the official source material:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Ecology_of_the_Charr

Secondly, that standard was acceptable by the humans. Acceptable by the charr. ANY sympathy you would give to the “innocent civilian humans” you will have to give to the charr when the humans got there. So, now wether it’s right or wrong is dependant upon whether it happens to the humans. hmmm.

Assuming the humans committed atrocities like the Searing rather than engaging in a peaceful Sylvari-like expansion (I don’t think we have the details on that,) then yes, what the humans did was wrong too. My guess is the humans did commit atrocities, and those should be a source of regret and the species should increase in enlightenment after those bad times.

Harming Charr civilians would be equally wrong. That just didn’t seem to be the subject of current discussion, so I figured it would just be assumed from what I said about an equal standard. I guess I should have been more specific.

My point has never been that humanity as a race has never engaged in wrongdoing in Tyria. That’s not true at all. Humans have done some wretched things. I just think the collective guilt thing often gets taken too far – especially when it involves blaming present humans for things that happened a thousand years ago.

Anakita Snakecharm.4360:

I can see why we may be talking at cross purposes, then. From the official source material:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Ecology_of_the_Charr

Awesome link. I’ll have to read up more.

Assuming the humans committed atrocities like the Searing rather than engaging in a peaceful Sylvari-like expansion (I don’t think we have the details on that,) then yes, what the humans did was wrong too. My guess is the humans did commit atrocities, and those should be a source of regret and the species should increase in enlightenment after those bad times.

Harming Charr civilians would be equally wrong. That just didn’t seem to be the subject of current discussion, so I figured it would just be assumed from what I said about an equal standard. I guess I should have been more specific.

My point has never been that humanity as a race has never engaged in wrongdoing in Tyria. That’s not true at all. Humans have done some wretched things. I just think the collective guilt thing often gets taken too far – especially when it involves blaming present humans for things that happened a thousand years ago.

Ah, i gottcha. My point was never to blame the individual humans for their ancestors crimes. I never prescribed fault to those individuals that paid the price. My first post summed up only that the charr can’t really be blamed for responding the way they did.

So that was my whole point about living by the sword. That war is hell. both for the charr and for the humans. My intention was kind of to equate them but i do see that focusing on one over the other did skew that message. Anyways, thanks for that link.

@Dustfinger

“In the days before the Gods of Tyria brought the humans to Tyria, the Charr battled with the Forgotten in the Blazeridge Mountains. Long after the Forgotten stopped threatening the Charr, the humans appeared and, with the help of their Gods, pushed the Charr from their southern borders, conquering the land that became known as Ascalon in 100 BE.”
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Charr

True, it’s unclear who was in Ascalon first, but it seems to not point to the Charr as their very first reference points to the Blazeridge Mountains. At any rate, the game of “Who was first?” is a self-perpetuating cycle with no end. Additionally, you would be groundless to say the humans invented the “might makes right” idea….the Charr basically live by that rule. And everything about them suggests they always have.

Obsidian.1328:

Dustfinger

“In the days before the Gods of Tyria brought the humans to Tyria, the Charr battled with the Forgotten in the Blazeridge Mountains. Long after the Forgotten stopped threatening the Charr, the humans appeared and, with the help of their Gods, pushed the Charr from their southern borders, conquering the land that became known as Ascalon in 100 BE.”
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Charr

True, it’s unclear who was in Ascalon first, but it seems to not point to the Charr as their very first reference points to the Blazeridge Mountains. At any rate, the game of “Who was first?” is a self-perpetuating cycle with no end. Additionally, you would be groundless to say the humans invented the “might makes right” idea….the Charr basically live by that rule. And everything about them suggests they always have.

This is why i’m not trying to play a game of who was first. Only that it’s a fact that the charr were invvaded and as the invadees, it is no surprise that they would respond in kind. (especially given their history). Also, never did i claim that humans invented the might makes right idea. what i did say is that they set that specific standard when they came to the land. so, because of the fact that they were in full support of that standard, I don’t feel sorry for them. (Though, as per my first post I do feel sorry that they endure a curse.) As per my analogy, it doesn’t matter how many other people the charr may have punched, if you punch them you should expect a similar retaliation.

edit: Anakita’s link was very informative though.

Driven back in the first war against the humans, the Charr were forced to surrender the lands that would become Ascalon

So, we do know that the humans set a standard and we do know what that standard was. it’s the same standard the charr had set against others.

Oh…I thought you meant that “might makes right” was the standard you were referring to. I see you mean it as a response to being invaded. Looking at Charr and Humans on the same level yeah I can see your point of course.

Interesting link by Anakita. I think it’s very Charr-biased though. And upstart humans?? It strikes me as odd that it states they would kill the gods if they had the opportunity, yet the other races still revere and worship them. How or why would a Charr use any god-based skills in the game if they despise them? There’s just so many glaring inconsistencies with the lore to match up with gw1 history.

It does seem to be giving us the view of how the charr saw things. e.g.:" the humans were like a plague that spread across the land."

but i like that because GW1 gave us the view of the humans. It painted a picture of mad beastmen bent on burning the world but that’s probably how the humans saw the charr 250 years ago.

Now we get to see how the charr saw those same things. (Including the “mad beastmen bent on burning the world” phase). it’s interesting that the charr saw the gods as their ancient enemies.

It is an opposing point of view for sure. But why stop there? Will we be playing as Krait, or Ogres, or Grawl in later expansions? It’s a little disconcerting killing a species you have no reason to think is capable of civility, much less goodness, in droves…and then turning around and calling them allies later. :/

Sure, there was no reason to think them capable of civility until they showed that initial impressions were wrong. Especially during a war, the enemy tends to be dehumanized. But when the war is overWhen WWI was over soldiers left their trenches and shared their cigarrettes with the other side. And there’s been 250 years to show there’s more to them than savagry.

“In victory, magnanimity” – Winston Churchill

That’s making the assumption the Charr are an intelligent species, you can’t dehumanize a beast.

And Winston was a smart man, but his generosity was certainly not universal. He treated the Irish like animals.

No assumption. It’s been confirmed in the last 250 game years ;P So anyone who only ever got a chance to see that ’animal side" is probably long dead.

On Churchill: Not sure how that applies. the Charr were the winners and showed a degree of magnanimity. Which further demonstrates their intelligence.

Dustfinger.9510:

No assumption. It’s been confirmed in the last 250 game years ;P So anyone who only ever got a chance to see that ’animal side" is probably long dead.

On Churchill: Not sure how that applies. the Charr were the winners and showed a degree of magnanimity. Which further demonstrates their intelligence.

Well yeah…since the new writers took over they did. If GW2 never came out there would be no reason to think the Charr were any different from other “mobs” out there you have to kill. And not because it was because you never heard their side of the story or anything, it’s because there was never any inkling of history or in-game cues that would lean that direction. Again, I’m talking pre-EotN.

My point is that they were artifically augmented, both culturally and cognitively, for the purposes of this game…and not because that’s where they were headed anyway. They might as well have randomly picked any of the creatures that walked or crawled around Tryia at that time. It’s arbitrary really.

The reason you find so many upset about them in particular is because of how they are presently portrayed in relation to anything Ascalon. ANet could have written the story to better reflect the past. But instead they chose to demonize a king(Adelbern), marginalize(to the point of eradicate) the GW1 Tyrian player’s primary heritage(Ascalon); and at the same time unrealistically promote that which became the reason for their demise(modern Charr).

The modern Charr hardly show any magnanimity towards Ascalon or its people, as Anakita already pointed out. Their attitude is condescending at the least, and reviling at the most. Why ANet chose to use them as a major player in GW2 I’ll never know, but transforming them into virtual engineers was way off the mark.

Before the modern lore came out it was assumed by many Ascalon would eventually recover from the Searing, if somewhat weakened by it. There was no indication pre-EotN(or pre-novels) that the nails were in the coffin. In fact, the signs all pointed toward a recovery after the defeat of the Titans…the source of power for the Charr. But the writer’s couldn’t reconcile that with having the Charr be a playable race in this game. So they quietly wrote Ascalon out of any future.

Finally, there’s no reason to paint Adelbern as a mad king. He was proud yes, but human nonetheless, and felt real regret with his relations with his son. These were his last words in the game after the he defeats the Titans:

“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.”

Hardly the words of vengeful madman.

So do I feel sorry for Ascalon’s ghosts? Yes, as much as I feel sorry every Ascalonian. Or any player that identified with them in the first game as well. ANet writers did themselves a disservice by this.

Dustfinger.9510:

edit: Anakita’s link was very informative though.

Driven back in the first war against the humans, the Charr were forced to surrender the lands that would become Ascalon

So, we do know that the humans set a standard and we do know what that standard was. it’s the same standard the charr had set against others.

You might want to read the entire document and not forget about

“No longer clamoring over the same territories, the unified Charr spread throughout the northern reaches of their homeland, and down into the lands east of the Shiverpeak Mountains. The Charr subjugated or destroyed any and all who dared defy them within their territories; they were masters of all they surveyed”

Where war and conquest were concerned, the Charr really didn’t need humans to set any standards for them, they were perfectly able to set them themselves, long before humans came north of the crystal desert. But had the humans lived north of the desert in the time of Charr expansion I have no doubt the Charr would have attacked and “subjugated or destroyed” them.

Has it occurred to you that the unchecked expansion of this “primitive people, filled with rage and a primal drive to dominate and control” was the reason why the Six, aided by the humans, moved against them?

Obsidian.1328:

Finally, there’s no reason to paint Adelbern as a mad king. He was proud yes, but human nonetheless, and felt real regret with his relations with his son.

Rurik was too kind when he called him foolish. After the Searing there was nothing left in Ascalon, at least not for the people of Ascalon, who would have been better of in Kryta, or beyond. Adelbern however, could only be King in Ascalon, in Kryta he would not be King. It is not surprising that, proud, stubborn and foolish (to put it kindly) he condemned the remaining Ascalons to an eternity of suffering and war, rather then accepting the loss of his crown.

frans.8092:

Dustfinger.9510:

edit: Anakita’s link was very informative though.

Driven back in the first war against the humans, the Charr were forced to surrender the lands that would become Ascalon

So, we do know that the humans set a standard and we do know what that standard was. it’s the same standard the charr had set against others.

You might want to read the entire document and not forget about

“No longer clamoring over the same territories, the unified Charr spread throughout the northern reaches of their homeland, and down into the lands east of the Shiverpeak Mountains. The Charr subjugated or destroyed any and all who dared defy them within their territories; they were masters of all they surveyed”

Where war and conquest were concerned, the Charr really didn’t need humans to set any standards for them, they were perfectly able to set them themselves, long before humans came north of the crystal desert. But had the humans lived north of the desert in the time of Charr expansion I have no doubt the Charr would have attacked and “subjugated or destroyed” them.

Has it occurred to you that the unchecked expansion of this “primitive people, filled with rage and a primal drive to dominate and control” was the reason why the Six, aided by the humans, moved against them?

I read that. You missed my point. Your argueing against a point that was never made. Anything I can say about this post has already been said in my previous posts.

edit: in fact any response I can give was in that very same post that you quoted of mine. And as I said, it’s the same standard that the charr had set against others.

Obsidian.1328:

it was assumed by many Ascalon would eventually recover from the Searing, if somewhat weakened by it. There was no indication pre-EotN(or pre-novels) that the nails were in the coffin. In fact, the signs all pointed toward a recovery after the defeat of the Titans…the source of power for the Charr.

Speak for yourself; there was no indication that there was any improvement at any point, beyond the victory of killing the Titans, the demons charr worshipped as gods. All that remained was a land on scorched earth instead of fields and woods and tar instead of water without a single hint it would get better, the remnants of Ascalon lead some miserable old man that flew off the handle when his son said words to the effect of “We should just cut our losses, even if it’s just to regroup.” Adlebern hated Kryta for what happened in the Guildwars, and utterly refused to trust their ambassador, much less flee there. What he did (which iirc was actually two years before the Krytan civil war) with the Foefire is something I’d honestly expect from the spiteful old git.

Obsidian.1328:

Well yeah…since the new writers took over they did. If GW2 never came out there would be no reason to think the Charr were any different from other “mobs” out there you have to kill. And not because it was because you never heard their side of the story or anything, it’s because there was never any inkling of history or in-game cues that would lean that direction. Again, I’m talking pre-EotN.

My point is that they were artifically augmented, both culturally and cognitively, for the purposes of this game…and not because that’s where they were headed anyway. They might as well have randomly picked any of the creatures that walked or crawled around Tryia at that time. It’s arbitrary really..

They had powerful magic. they were organized. Using their magic and organization they were able to take on and beat one of the most powerful nations in the land. The Charr weren’t rewriten as you suggest. they were further explored.

The reason you find so many upset about them in particular is because of how they are presently portrayed in relation to anything Ascalon. ANet could have written the story to better reflect the past. But instead they chose to demonize a king(Adelbern), marginalize(to the point of eradicate) the GW1 Tyrian player’s primary heritage(Ascalon); and at the same time unrealistically promote that which became the reason for their demise(modern Charr).

The kings choices have been portrayed as folly since the beginning.

The modern Charr hardly show any magnanimity towards Ascalon or its people, as Anakita already pointed out. Their attitude is condescending at the least, and reviling at the most. Why ANet chose to use them as a major player in GW2 I’ll never know, but transforming them into virtual engineers was way off the mark.

Working with humans is indeed a degree of magnanimity. Especially if they are presented with the same rights in their own capitol as the Charr (Which they are).

Before the modern lore came out it was assumed by many Ascalon would eventually recover from the Searing, if somewhat weakened by it. There was no indication pre-EotN(or pre-novels) that the nails were in the coffin. In fact, the signs all pointed toward a recovery after the defeat of the Titans…the source of power for the Charr. But the writer’s couldn’t reconcile that with having the Charr be a playable race in this game. So they quietly wrote Ascalon out of any future.

Limiting all “acceptable” lore as everything pre EotN/pre Novels is telling. As you said, assumptions were made and they were wrong.

Finally, there’s no reason to paint Adelbern as a mad king. He was proud yes, but human nonetheless, and felt real regret with his relations with his son. These were his last words in the game after the he defeats the Titans:

“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.”

Hardly the words of vengeful madman.

What your showing here is evidence of his humanity. That’s not in dispute. His actions were folly from the beginning. How history looks at historical figures is largly based on their historical actions. Keep in mind, this is 250 years later. The people that new and loved him no longer exist.

So do I feel sorry for Ascalon’s ghosts? Yes, as much as I feel sorry every Ascalonian. Or any player that identified with them in the first game as well. ANet writers did themselves a disservice by this.

So, I stick by my origional post and for any fan that identifies themselves as the first game, I can only say they are outdated sentiments of a dead past. Out dated by 250 game years.

Loki.4871:

Obsidian.1328:

it was assumed by many Ascalon would eventually recover from the Searing, if somewhat weakened by it. There was no indication pre-EotN(or pre-novels) that the nails were in the coffin. In fact, the signs all pointed toward a recovery after the defeat of the Titans…the source of power for the Charr.

Speak for yourself; there was no indication that there was any improvement at any point, beyond the victory of killing the Titans, the demons charr worshipped as gods. All that remained was a land on scorched earth instead of fields and woods and tar instead of water without a single hint it would get better, the remnants of Ascalon lead some miserable old man that flew off the handle when his son said words to the effect of “We should just cut our losses, even if it’s just to regroup.” Adlebern hated Kryta for what happened in the Guildwars, and utterly refused to trust their ambassador, much less flee there. What he did (which iirc was actually two years before the Krytan civil war) with the Foefire is something I’d honestly expect from the spiteful old git.

Well, after the Titan defeat, they had no more enemies. The Charr were broken as a powerhouse. Orr was gone. Kryta had its own problems with the Mantle. The Guild Wars were over. I guess it just boils down to opinion but by my eyes Adelbern was vindicated by his insistence on staying. He won, albeit with help from the Chosen Ones(you). Rurik’s decision to leave cost him his life. And Adelbern’s distrust of Kryta was a two-way road. Keep in mind the the ambassador to which you are referring to was wearing Mantle clothes. It wouldn’t be a stretch at all to think the Mantle and Mursaat offered help only to eventually subjugate Ascalon. He was stubborn and what he did to Rurik was wrong, but he wasn’t mad.

And btw, the Krytan civil war was well before the Foefire took place.

@Dustfinger

1) The Charr attacked Ascalon after many years of Guild Wars. It is referenced to several times that all 3 human nations were war-weary and weak at that time.

2) See above post

3) I don’t think you know what magnanimous means. Having Stormcaller on display in the capital is not noble or dignified, it’s spiteful. And no Ascalonian would be caught dead living in the Citadel with that on display, regardless of the fact that there are some in the game now that do so.

4) Limiting lore to pre-Eye is done only for the purposes of this topic, and for good reason. There are different writers at work here which I’m sure you’ve seen me post earlier. Any researcher worth his weight in library fees knows that a primary source is better than a secondary. If you want to know something, do you ask the guy who wrote it, or do you ask the guy who read the book the first guy wrote? You can quote GW2 authors all day long but it’s a little irrelevant if they are just filtering someone else’s knowledge through their own lens. And that’s not to say GW1 lore is unassailable by any means, but it’s certainly a better source for GW1 history than GW2 is. I’m not sure why you don’t see that.

5) See above post again, and: First of all history doesn’t look at history. People look at history. And trying to judge something in the past based solely on actions is terrible research. You look at everything. Everything. Yeah on the surface Adelbern seems like a supreme a@@hole. But given his options, he did what he thought was best for his people. And it turned out he made the right choice after all that. Just because a game sequel comes around and decides to bend the history to suit their purposes, doesn’t invalidate that. Also, whether or not his loved-ones are still around is irrelevant.

6) This doesn’t make sense. The whole point of the post is about Ascalon’s and the Charr’s past in relation to the present and you want to cut the past out of the argument? I just assumed you were being immature at this point.