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.
Time travel discussions are fun. You could have waited
jp