Wow. You really don’t read the posts, do you? The entire post of mine that you quoted was speaking to whether or not the charr were nomadic. Did you just pick my post out of a hat? How did you even get that far without knowing that?
Ah, what a lovely tone. You must make many friends.
I am sooo sorry for not reacting to all of your points, but 2 and 3 simply were not interesting, with 2 akin to saying the sky is blue and 3 is just bs. In 1 at least you tried to make a point against the idea that they were, or could be, a nomadic people by pointing out that the ‘ecology’ doesn’t support the idea that they didn’t build structures. Truth is that, as far as I remember from GW1 we do not see any Charr structures that could not be moved easily. Which is what you’d expect from a nomadic people.
Wood and hide is stone age culture. You described it, I named it.
I see, not an association that was obvious to me, the Stone Age is the name of a period in human history, wood and hides are building materials that are use to this day.
I described what is observable in GW1, Charr use those materials throughout Prophecies and Eye of the North and while non-nomadic cultures may use these materials as well, they tend to use other materials for their structures, like stone.
So you finally read it. Why are you still arguing against the context then?
Wrong, you finally realize I read it before making my post. And where am I arguing against the context?
Nomadic or not, the ‘ecology’ as presented in GW1 can not lead me to the conclusion that they build (lasting) structures and while the absence of such structures in Ascalon at the time of GW1, and after 1200 years of humans living there, doesn’t support the conclusion that they didn’t build them, there were none in Eye of the North to support the idea that they did build lasting structures.
Now it’s “lasting structures”. Got it. You are right that wood and hide doesn’t last and needs to be maintained. what exactly is your point? That they didn’t build stone structures? So what? How does this relate to the post you quoted?
Ás far as I am concerned, it’s always been about lasting structures, that follows from the context. You asked: “How do we know it was unsettled?”, to which Gandarel replies, “They were nomadic savages with no sturctures built there”. He points out, I think, the lack of Charr structures in Ascalon (and beyond) and given the timeframe he would be referring to lasting (really long-lasting) structures.
I dunno, but, eh, from my post, that you obviously didn’t read before mentioning some 13th post up:
" if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them"
Now, what was it in this 13th post that you felt needed attention?
You still want to say something about reading posts?
Absolutlly. Read the entire post. That how it was given so that’s how it was meant to be read. It addressed you posts already. Before you ever quoted it. You argued that the war wasn’t about taking land back while I had already said it was about taking land back AND something else that isn’t disputed.
Both points were in my post:
“Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.”
I’ll lay it put for you:
“the war really was about taking their land back.”
“Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’.”
“And subduing their most threatening foe”
“And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.”
Which is proven by the ecology. But you seem to think that there’s some sort of dispute about subduing humanity.
What gives you that idea?
You feel it’s cause to continue the war with charr? Cool story bro. How does that relate to my post?
Context perhaps? This is a thread about ‘hating Charr’, within a story-setting where this age-old war is pretty big deal.
