About the Charr victim complex, and Anet's hatred for Ascalon — Guild Wars 2 Forums

About the Charr victim complex, and Anet's hatred for Ascalon

witcher.3197witcher.3197 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited September 22, 2019 in Lore

Like many others who grew up playing GW1, I've always loved pre-searing Ascalon. The place and the lore still has a special place in my heart, it's what truly hooked me into the franchise in general. I've leveled several characters to the point of getting the Legendary Defender of Ascalon title and I still log in from time to time just because of.. "sentimentality" - as Bangar would put it. In fact, a lot of people do - in 2019 pre-searing Ascalon City is STILL the second most populated town in GW1 after Kamadan (the main trade hub).

After GW2's launch I had to get used to the fact that Anet apparently despised everything about Ascalon, did a complete 180 and now we're supposed to not see the Charr as invaders, but allies. We help them kill ghosts of beloved characters over and over again, help them blow up statues, etc. That was a tough pill to swallow but I've made my peace with it.

Yet Anet never misses an opportunity to twist the knife even more.. the first entry of the Icebrood Saga was fairly promising gotta say, but despite that it still left a bad taste in my mouth.

Specifically the part where Bangar is playing the victim by saying something along the lines of "Why should we trust humans, they used to make armor out of our skins, treat us like animals, bruhuh :'( "

Well yeah sorry if you genocide an entire kingdom after nuking it from orbit, burn the women alive, take children for slaves, eat prisoners, be the trigger of a cataclysmic event destroying another kingdom entirely (Orr) while simultaneously invading a 3rd one (Kryta), you DON'T get to feel sorry for yourselves. But apparently Anet doesn't remember that part of the lore..

I guess my question is, why does Anet hate Ascalon so much? Why do they continously disrespect their own lore and try to push away a part of the people who are deeply invested in the GW universe? Why do you want me to hate something that I'm deeply attached to since childhood? Could you at least stop rubbing dirt in the wound? Pre-searing fans are people who care deeply about the world you've created Anet, on a level most studios/writers could only dream of. Yet all you've ever done since GW2 is push us away on purpose. Why?

Tagged:
<134

Comments

  • witcher.3197witcher.3197 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Taylan.2187 said:
    Can't know what exactly the writers had in mind while designing that dialogue but Bangar's mention of horrors committed by humans is perfectly in character for a hate mongerer. It's a very common thing among factions that hate each other to constantly mention past atrocities.

    I'd agree with what you've said if it was done in the big speech, but nope. This was in private with only him, 2 high ranking Blood Legion officers, and me being an Ascalonian human present.

    This is not Bangar being smart and manipulative, this is Anet trying to paint Ascalonians as villains and Charr as the victims, a VERY consistent theme since 2012.

    Bangar's motivations and actions completely make sense even without Anet amping up the completely BS Charr victim complex. It feels like yet another unnecessary jab at people who are rooting for Ascalon.

  • Taylan.2187Taylan.2187 Member ✭✭
    edited September 22, 2019

    @witcher.3197 said:
    I'd agree with what you've said if it was done in the big speech, but nope. This was in private with only him, 2 high ranking Blood Legion officers, and me being an Ascalonian human present.

    Big liars tend to believe their lies, so it makes sense he'd bring it up in private, while he couldn't say it openly during the celebration because he had to hide his hate-kitten for other races. He clearly used that line of thinking behind the scenes to radicalize the Charr who are now behind him though.

    (He did openly say "Charr above everyone" in his speech but that's still within certain limits and could be defended as pride in his race instead of hatred towards other races.)

  • @Randulf.7614 said:

    The Charr are not blameless, but they are in the position to assert morality given they are the victors.

    so might makes rights?

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 22, 2019

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    The Charr are not blameless, but they are in the position to assert morality given they are the victors.

    so might makes rights?

    No? Nor did I state such a thing

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • I loved the old Ascalon per searing, I also like the charr, but would have preferred it if the player character I played in guild wars 1 was able to stop the searing and was to a sense able to reverse the tables on the charr.
    I came up with the idea iof an alternate timeline even though the searing is prevented the charr legions under control of the flame legion shamans and the titans still attack Kyrta and Orr but its Kyrta not Ascalon that suffers with much of Eastern Kyrta including the captiol of Lions Arch being sacked and plundered, with the nation of Orr still being invaded but then destroyed by Vizier Khibron wiping a large chuck of the charr legions then the Musrrsat help the founders of the white mantel and drive the charr legions scrambling back for the far northern Ascalon they control leaving the charr legions armies badly weaken not destroyed from two failed invasions and the male charr demanding why they wasted time attacking to far of nations over attacking Ascalon's great walls and why and how the charr shamans failed to bring them victory as they failed three times this would deal a blow to the flame legions control of of the legions and cause the charr legions to split from each other with many charr still attacking ascalon their way without flame legion since they brought them nothing but defeats, and of course the charr would be no closer to destorying the great wall of ascalon and the kingdom of Ascalon would stil lbe standing as a bastion of human civilization. Oh and the kytrans would fall more willing to the white mantel's lies as they kytans come out badly scarred and bitter towards both the charr legions and the kingdom of ascalon. Mostly the kytans would hate the ascalons after all if you were an kytan how would you feel that your rival nation Ascalon won the guild the third guild wars by default thanks to the charr legion attacking and crippling Kyrta, and destroying Orr where as Ascalon came out unscathed and stronger then even with its army having time to recover, and having the the hero of ascalon my male human fighter character to thanks for stopping the charr attack on the great wall of ascalon. If you were a kyrtan or an Orrian you lost family and friends, years of your life, you home, possibly your livelihood all to the third guild wars that ended with Ascalon coming out as a default victor. The Kyrtan's what is left of the Orrian's are angry and want revenge and more will side with the white mantel. In the end the white mantel is still beaten as the hero of ascalon still goes to Kyrta to find out about rumors of kyrta planning to attack ascalon again.
    Also the charr may end up being united by Kalla Scorchrazor with her surviving as the charr legions are in a desperate situation to retake ascalon and somehow destroy the great wall of ascalon, Kalla may end up as the first female charr Khan-ur if she is not killed by the flame legion charr shamans. Still teh charr would attack the great wall with cannons and other powerful weapons that they can build but ascalon's great walls have also been outfitted with cannons on the walls as well. SO the charr get no more closer to taking Ascalon then they ever were. The Legions would have a reason to not want peace with the kingdom of Ascalon a charr character personally may have a hard time even wanting to work with humans. and the storyline for the male and female charr characters would be about how the charr characters attempting to try and work with non charr including humans. A charr character may even risk starting the war with humans of Ascalon just cause they been no doubt taught to hate the humans of ascalon no matter what. Oh and the kingdom of Kytra still hates Ascalon and the white mantel keep encouraging the hatred of Ascalon and its people. Matter a fact more races and their nations would be against and hate the kingdom of Ascalon which in no small is thanks to the white mantel causing non humans to be against Ascalon just to get Ascalon in to countless wars to weaken it. A HUman character from Ascalon has to deal with the radical hatred for his nation including from the charr most of all.

    DO not take this like it got be serious this is just made up on what if Ascalon was saved from the searing happening.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 23, 2019

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    They aren't, they are telling the story from the Charr side. And from their point of view, their feelings are quite in keeping with the lore.

    Yes, the Charr did all that butchering, but lets not forget the humans came in and started a war against them and took their land to be their Kingdom. Humans are equally culpable when it comes to the unpleasant actions - they were the invaders. I'm no Charr fan and I didn't like the direction of the Charr at launch, but Bangar's perspective/dialogue is spot on from his point of view.

    So, no they haven't disrepected their lore (at least in this specific instance) or anyone playing the game. Humans have the Krytan region and they needed somewhere to put a race they knew people would want to play and Ascalon was a natural fit given it was their land prior to human settling (yes Charr took it from other races, but that's irrelevant for this point) and they still occupied much of the region post-GW1

    I kind of agree with this, but only to an extent. I would say ut makes sense for the Charr to villianize the humans, but I am unsure if i'd say the humans are equally culpable. We know Balthazar wanted to expand and his view was the one that got the most support from the Pantheon, but Dwayna and Melandru also wanted peace. Likewise while Balthazar is depicted in a very negative like in PoF, we're unsure how aggressive he really was at the time especially considering how Zafirah describes his tenants. Balthazar had always been ruthless and epxnasionist, but was it ever that bad before? and if so why did humans manage to forge alliance with so many other races?

    For all we know the Charr were hyper violent psychopaths who opened fire on humans the moment they got off the boat, it fits the theme of their previous occupation of the region. I tend to view humans more akin to migrants because of how they operate, and Charr much closer to violent expansionist colonilists, which fits with their description in Ecology of the Charr. Is that to say humans are blameless? Absolutely not, but the Charr are much more evil in my eyes, and i'm not even sure i'd be that sympathetic even had the humans attacked first.

    I imagine if Icebrood Saga is anything like HoT for Sylvari or PoF for humans we likely will be spending a good amount of time dissecting this parts of Charr society. Given Bangars speech it came off as something rooted in something like reason, but also something that wasn't right, or even sane, judging by the end of the prologue I can't imagine our takeaway was supposed to be he was right all along.

    That said yes, I would like it if my Ascalonian human could say something besides just be background wallpaper while Bangar irrationally foams at the mouth. :P

  • Zaraki.5784Zaraki.5784 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @witcher.3197 said:
    Specifically the part where Bangar is playing the victim by saying something along the lines of "Why should we trust humans, they used to make armor out of our skins, treat us like animals, bruhuh :'( "

    Well yeah sorry if you genocide an entire kingdom after nuking it from orbit, burn the women alive, take children for slaves, eat prisoners, be the trigger of a cataclysmic event destroying another kingdom entirely (Orr) while simultaneously invading a 3rd one (Kryta), you DON'T get to feel sorry for yourselves. But apparently Anet doesn't remember that part of the lore..

    From what we saw, Bangar is clearly an insane character, are you trying to apply logic to a twisted man's (charr's) speech?
    Also saying "what Bangar thinks=what Anet thinks" is not logic.

    "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never be able to injure you!"
    The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The Six beware that the race (read: legions) who has little to no contact to humans as they are now is still a bit miffed about what happened over 250 years ago. Of COURSE they still hate humans, they are far away from them and left to their own ideas of how bad and awful they all are. They didn't have time nor intereest in getting over the past because they were only ever exposed to their own idea of it.

    Bite me.

  • @Loesh.4697 said:
    I kind of agree with this, but only to an extent. I would say ut makes sense for the Charr to villianize the humans, but I am unsure if i'd say the humans are equally culpable. We know Balthazar wanted to expand and his view was the one that got the most support from the Pantheon, but Dwayna and Melandru also wanted peace. Likewise while Balthazar is depicted in a very negative like in PoF, we're unsure how aggressive he really was at the time especially considering how Zafirah describes his tenants. Balthazar had always been ruthless and epxnasionist, but was it ever that bad before? and if so why did humans manage to forge alliance with so many other races?

    That's the gods. Not the humans. Different groups.

    In addition, the Six Gods' involvement were only for the first 100 years. There was another 1070 years between their non-involvement and the Searing where the humans of Ascalon constantly pushed back the charr out of the lands they've owned for - by that point - centuries.

    That said, I would say charr have more villainism in the story than humans. Mainly because they wanted to recapture land - to the point of searing the land - that they lost over a millennia before, that they had conquered from other inhabitants beforehand, and had owned for less than a generation.

    That said, I do not think this episode is victimizing the charr. There is a very heavy coat of "charr are warmongers who have never had a time in their cultural history where they weren't fighting massive wars". Yes, Bangar blames humans for their atrocities. But he is also a warmonger himself who simply doesn't want to consider peace and this is heavily showcased.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • ugrakarma.9416ugrakarma.9416 Member ✭✭✭✭

    nothing too complex: charr/norm focus was a old playerbase demand, so they are killing 2 problems with one punch. its was time and is refreshing.

    main pvp: Khel the Undead(power reaper).

  • ugrakarma.9416ugrakarma.9416 Member ✭✭✭✭

    the only possible "lore fault" is bangar age, is he really so old to account human/charr war at first hand?

    main pvp: Khel the Undead(power reaper).

  • Westenev.5289Westenev.5289 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If Anet is rooting for the charr, why is Bangar (the charr you source) the bad guy starting a hate campaign to gather support to subjugate the other races? If he truly was the victim in all of this, why didn't Queen Jennah send her shining blade to assassinate him?

  • witcher.3197witcher.3197 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 23, 2019

    Honetly saddened by the amount of Charr apologists in the GW2 community..

    Call it what you want, they commited the worst war crimes in the known lore. Sure Anet retconned it to "taking back their homeland" but by that time it was also the human's homeland. By the same logic native Americans could carry out a genocide and you people would be fine with it, I suppose.

    In this very chapter of the story they talk a lot about how the Charr always had enemies, they NEED to point their weapons at something. It's not like they are poor peaceful souls that just want peace, no, they are the worst most aggressive and ruthless warmongers in GW and NOT victims by any stretch of the imagination.

    They pretty much waged war on everything that moved, but I guess if they get beaten once that's "unfair" to them. Give me a break. Charr are the spoiled lovechild of Anet.

  • witcher.3197witcher.3197 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rognik.2579 said:

    @witcher.3197 said:
    This is not Bangar being smart and manipulative, this is Anet trying to paint Ascalonians as villains and Charr as the victims, a VERY consistent theme since 2012.

    You're half right. Bangar is not being smart nor manipulative. He's expressing his true feelings about the matter, mostly to charr and one amorphous blob who could be anything from a Blood Legion soldier to an Ascalonian loyalist to an asura who couldn't care less either way. Bangar truly feels that the humans did the charr wrong, whether that's accurate or not. Considering by the end of the chapter he's depicted as the villain, I don't think he's meant to be sympathetic.

    I think he IS meant to be sympathetic to an extent. "Oh look, the evil humans caused such emotional scars in the Charr, they are being pushed towards extremism because they just can't cope! :'( " - that's what I got out of it.

    Sad part is I liked the story in general, even Bangar. We need more villains like him, people with realistic motivations and even a "for the greater good" attitude.

    I like where this is going, what I don't like is Anet taking every opportunity to spit on Ascalon and GW1.

  • Rognik.2579Rognik.2579 Member ✭✭✭

    @ugrakarma.9416 said:
    the only possible "lore fault" is bangar age, is he really so old to account human/charr war at first hand?

    The peace treaty was only signed a year before the start of the game. So all charr would remember the human/charr war. Using charr pelts and horn in fashion, though, probably died out a century ago, so no one alive in Tyria (except maybe Livia) would remember it.

    @witcher.3197 said:
    I think he IS meant to be sympathetic to an extent. "Oh look, the evil humans caused such emotional scars in the Charr, they are being pushed towards extremism because they just can't cope! :'( " - that's what I got out of it.

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. There's a difference between "sympathetic" and "understandable" when it comes to motivations. Most of the replies here do not read it as sympathetic, so maybe you're reading something in his words or tone that I and the rest of us aren't.

  • witcher.3197witcher.3197 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2019

    @Kalavier.1097 said:
    Hell, I pondered the situation of "wait, why do these people hate the Charr for reclaiming Ascalon from humanity, when they outright think it's perfectly okay and justified and 100% good for humanity to kick/wipe out the charr from Ascalon?"

    It's not like Ascalon is some divine right for the Charr to have. Humans held it longer then the Charr, deal with it.

    If the Charr could hold a grudge for 1000 years then conquer the land again, why would humans have to just concede it?

    But this discussion wasn't about who Ascalon belongs to, stop derailing the thread. It's about not only giving amnesty to the Charr, they are painting the worst most savage war criminals in the lore as the victims, while the actual victims of the searing and Charr invasion are being painted as the villains for fighting back.

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If it's any consolation I'm pretty sure Anet are setting Bangar up to be one of the villains of this season.

    But most importantly, as a few people have pointed out, what a character says or thinks is not automatically a reflection of Anet's official stance on the topic, or even the writer's personal opinions. Would you think the same if it wasn't something you're so personally sensitive about? Do you think Anet considers our characters to be the true villains of the story because Joko said it? Should all sylvari characters have joined Mordremoth because he said it's the right thing to do? Do you think Anet are sexist and think all women are weak, stupid and useless because the Sons of Svanir say that? Or do you think those are all examples of the writers creating differet kinds of characters, both good and bad, because if everyone always agreed with each other all the time there would be no story? Why should Bangar be any different?

    Danielle Aurorel - Desolation EU. Mini Collector.

    "Not dead which eternal lie, stranger eons death may die. Drain you of your sanity, face the thing that should not be"

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2019

    *******SPOILERS BELOW**********

    Interesting topic.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    That said, I do not think this episode is victimizing the charr. There is a very heavy coat of "charr are warmongers who have never had a time in their cultural history where they weren't fighting massive wars". Yes, Bangar blames humans for their atrocities. But he is also a warmonger himself who simply doesn't want to consider peace and this is heavily showcased.

    This is, I think, also alluded to several times (at least once by Rytlock) when it is pointed out that now with Kralk gone, the Charr have no 'enemy' to fight, so it makes perfect sense for Bangar to go 'looking' for a new enemy. That he bears a grudge against humans, and that to his perception, because of Aurene, Humanity could be a threat to the Charr (and other races) by becoming a super power, it makes sense to rally against them. Maybe this is why he finally agreed to sue for peace with the Flame Legion? Maybe he thinks, in addition to Jormag, he can make use of Shamans to fight off humanity?

  • Genesis.8572Genesis.8572 Member ✭✭✭

    A charr supremacist has a victimization complex about a foreign culture? Okay.

  • I understand that ANet wants to go for the "their is multiple sides for every story" kind of thing.
    But if it is the case, where do we ever hear of the other sides? Each time this is mentioned, we never ever hear of any other alternate interpretation of history than the Charr version.
    There is at most musing of wether human leaders were cartoonishly evil, totally wrong, crazy, delusional or a mix of all.
    There is also the problem that the charr of the time weren't specially scholars or keepers of knowledge. On the contrary, there is many indications that they were on a constant streak of "cultural reformation", dark ages, book burning and "forbidden knowledge should be destroyed" movements.
    The very notion that historians accross the races would take their version as canon, or even seriously, is simply ludicrous. Even charr historians should be screaming about blatant propaganda and rewriting history to fit once political agenda.
    [rant]
    There might be the "written by the victors" angle to it. This cliche might have value in a successful completely totalitarian system but doesn't hold water on a world level. Personally, I feel bad for real life historians that have to live thru all the kitten people that throw that empty formula with zero regard of context and zero reflection of what it means and when it can be applied.
    Use "written by the survivors"; "written by those who know how to write"; "written by those who bothered to do the research"; "written by people who know you won't be bothering checking"; "written by people who understand there is no mean to check" instead.
    [/rant]

    To be clear:

    • In this Season, we have the charr, perspective as it is seen in their homeland. It is heavily implied to be part of the official propaganda, and as such is perfectly fine.
    • The fact that the various foreigners do not object is also find; after all they are here as kind of ambassadors. Slowly polishing angles and not being too aggressive is their role (also they probably don't want to be gutted on the spot).
    • The problem is in the other part of the world, where the human centric view should be predominant (better documented, cross checked, closer to the fact, with physical and episcopal evidence, backed by administrative records...).
    • Also, charr fighting ghost understand that they fight mainly against civilians fueled by desesperation. They leave on a daily basis with the consequence of the searing and should have first hand experience of how twisted their version of history is. This is never acknowledged.
    • Saying that Ascalon was Charr territory thousand(s) years ago is like saying that the Mediterranean world was Roman a thousand years ago. That wouldn't justify Italian going all out on a conquest war, nuking whole country, enslaving and eating the survivors, replacing baguettes by pizzas and engaging in ethnical cleansing of everything non Italian.
  • @Adiabatik.6714 said:
    I understand that ANet wants to go for the "their is multiple sides for every story" kind of thing.
    But if it is the case, where do we ever hear of the other sides? Each time this is mentioned, we never ever hear of any other alternate interpretation of history than the Charr version.
    There is at most musing of wether human leaders were cartoonishly evil, totally wrong, crazy, delusional or a mix of all.

    A: No other race was involved in the Charr-human war at the time, besides the Norn who were a neutral party and allowed the charr passage as long as they didn't attack the Norn (They didn't get involved with humans until much later)
    B: The human leader (Adelbern) isn't "mused", but WAS totally crazy. This is literally in both human and Charr histories, and was seen in GW1.

    There is also the problem that the charr of the time weren't specially scholars or keepers of knowledge. On the contrary, there is many indications that they were on a constant streak of "cultural reformation", dark ages, book burning and "forbidden knowledge should be destroyed" movements.

    I don't know where you get the "book burning and hiding information" bit, because I never got that from GW1. They surpressed ideas that followed "Titans aren't gods", but we never really saw Charr culture until EOTN, and even that was a small glimpse.

    The very notion that historians accross the races would take their version as canon, or even seriously, is simply ludicrous. Even charr historians should be screaming about blatant propaganda and rewriting history to fit once political agenda.

    Last I saw, quite literally the other races/priory don't take the Charr public depiction of the history of Ascalon seriously. In Black Citadel alone you can find a few Charr/Charr in the priory investigating the ruins with the literal intent to dig up facts about the battle at Rin, as opposed to the propaganda that had been previously put out by the legions.

    They factor in certain elements sure, but in some cases they sit down and investigate, comparing human vs Charr accounts.

    To be clear:

    • In this Season, we have the charr, perspective as it is seen in their homeland. It is heavily implied to be part of the official propaganda, and as such is perfectly fine.
    • The fact that the various foreigners do not object is also find; after all they are here as kind of ambassadors. Slowly polishing angles and not being too aggressive is their role (also they probably don't want to be gutted on the spot).
    • The problem is in the other part of the world, where the human centric view should be predominant (better documented, cross checked, closer to the fact, with physical and episcopal evidence, backed by administrative records...).

    The information given in this episode, from Charr perspective, doesn't contradict anything previously given to us. We know that humans and Charr fought brutal wars against each other, kicking each other out of the same spot of land. We know that Ascalon warriors did skin Charr, using their hide/fur as part of armor and the horns (or even entire skulls/heads) as part of helms.

    • Also, charr fighting ghost understand that they fight mainly against civilians fueled by desperation. They leave on a daily basis with the consequence of the searing and should have first hand experience of how twisted their version of history is. This is never acknowledged.

    Foefire ghosts came from Adelbern, not the searing. They don't see desperate civilians, but enraged spirits hell-bent on killing anything, human, Charr, grawl, ogre, Asura...

    This actually has the opposite effect of what you think. They live with the daily reminder of what an insane human did to try to defeat the Charr, refusing to die in battle or even retreat, and slaughtering his own soldiers and civilians in a violent ritual that trapped them all there, for all time unless the counter-ritual is discovered. And all the Charr in Ascalon know the ghosts view of the world is twisted and crazy.

    • Saying that Ascalon was Charr territory thousand(s) years ago is like saying that the Mediterranean world was Roman a thousand years ago. That wouldn't justify Italian going all out on a conquest war, nuking whole country, enslaving and eating the survivors, replacing baguettes by pizzas and engaging in ethnical cleansing of everything non Italian.

    This is a horrible comparison because last I checked, the Italian's were totally driven out of the entire Mediterranean region and slaughtered/treated as animals.

    And once again this is a completely false statement because nobody here has said the Charr are Justified in the actions of GW1, or said actions are forgivable/acceptable. It's all been "Both sides did horrific things, and BOTH SIDES don't do those things anymore!"

  • Westenev.5289Westenev.5289 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Adiabatik.6714 said:
    But if it is the case, where do we ever hear of the other sides? Each time this is mentioned, we never ever hear of any other alternate interpretation of history than the Charr version.

    I'm sure one Asura in particular inside the blood keep would agree with you; although I hear "correcting" propaganda in a keep full of young impresionable zealots can be bad for ones health.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    Unless i'm missing some grand scale atrocity, by and large I wouldn't consider the Kurzick/Luxon conflict worse. Off the top of my head all I can think of is the priestess of Vasberg being pierced with a spear by the Luxons during an attempted peace talk.

    In terms of major grand scale magical atrocities to both oneself and others, unless i'm totally misremembering didn't the Titans effectively eat Charr souls as well? largely due to them being, well, demons and rather capricious in their appetites. Needless to say the Searing was also a lot more destructive to the land, I don't think the Foefire destroyed the surrounding forests. I always felt that bit about the Khan Ur wanting to slash and burn Ascalon in Ecology was supposed to be tragic irony for what the Searing would later do.

    Aside from the Searing being the gold standard still for atrocities, I largely agree though.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2019

    @Kalavier.1097 said:
    I never made it about "Who Ascalon belongs to." However, again, the Charr of today ARE NOT the charr of GW1. Do you sit down and blame all Germans for the actions of the kitten party today? Do you blame the British for bringing slaves to America? Probably not. The Charr of Iron Legion, settled in Ascalon are not the same Charr who served under Flame legion 250+ years ago.

    One thing I want to note here, is that this isn't entirely correct. All four legions invaded Ascalon, Orr, and Kryta, not just Flame. Yes, Flame ruled over the other three, and it was Flame shamans who performed the Searing, but Iron, Blood, and Ash fought in the war just as much as the Flame.

    Whether or not one can argue "the charr who waged war in GW1 are not the charr who are in GW2" is also debated. Obviously they're not in the literal sense, but the war was still occurring actively 7 years ago. And in Ghosts of Ascalon, it was stated that the charr took human prisoners and made them slaves (these slaves were let go as part of the cease-fire agreement).

    The charr of GW2 - of all legions - are 100% the charr who fought in the war. Just as the Ascalonians of GW2 are 100% the humans who fought in the war. And war crimes were committed on both sides. However, the concessions of the cease-fire treaty were to pay for those war crimes. Both sides have war criminals, and both sides are paying for those crimes.

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:
    *******SPOILERS BELOW**********

    Interesting topic.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    That said, I do not think this episode is victimizing the charr. There is a very heavy coat of "charr are warmongers who have never had a time in their cultural history where they weren't fighting massive wars". Yes, Bangar blames humans for their atrocities. But he is also a warmonger himself who simply doesn't want to consider peace and this is heavily showcased.

    This is, I think, also alluded to several times (at least once by Rytlock) when it is pointed out that now with Kralk gone, the Charr have no 'enemy' to fight, so it makes perfect sense for Bangar to go 'looking' for a new enemy. That he bears a grudge against humans, and that to his perception, because of Aurene, Humanity could be a threat to the Charr (and other races) by becoming a super power, it makes sense to rally against them. Maybe this is why he finally agreed to sue for peace with the Flame Legion? Maybe he thinks, in addition to Jormag, he can make use of Shamans to fight off humanity?

    He's definitely taking in the more extreme side of Flame into the Renegades with him, as we can see some Flame Legion in the crowd at the end of the prologue. Which is something I fully expected him to do when I predicted the "charr civil war plot" earlier this year.

    @Adiabatik.6714 said:
    I understand that ANet wants to go for the "their is multiple sides for every story" kind of thing.
    But if it is the case, where do we ever hear of the other sides? Each time this is mentioned, we never ever hear of any other alternate interpretation of history than the Charr version.

    There's really only two sides to this story, and GW1 showcased the human side exclusively until the very end. So the human side is a bit muted because "that story's been told, and told, and told." It is there in GW2 though, but it remains mostly exclusive to Fields of Ruins and southeastern Blazeridge Steppes. There are smaller bits in DR and Season 3 (via Caudecus' hatred of charr and his funding the Separatists). And this makes sense - you hear the story of the side you interact with. And we interact with the charr a lot more than we interact with Ascalonians. Simply due to the land they own, and the main plots we cover.

    This was why I was hoping that Season 5 would focus first on cleansing the Foefire before Bangar goes "no other enemies, gotta fight humans now" - because that would bring in Ascalonian humans, and we would hear their side a bit more vocally, before we go full out charr conflict.

    There is at most musing of wether human leaders were cartoonishly evil, totally wrong, crazy, delusional or a mix of all.

    As Kalavier said, there's no musing. Adelbern was 100% bonafide insane. But not cartoonishly so, imo. He's pretty similar to Bangar, really, but less charismatic.

    There is also the problem that the charr of the time weren't specially scholars or keepers of knowledge. On the contrary, there is many indications that they were on a constant streak of "cultural reformation", dark ages, book burning and "forbidden knowledge should be destroyed" movements.

    I never got this view of "dark ages" and "book burning" or "knowledge should be destroyed". I mean, yes, there's very clear cases of propaganda rewriting of history, but these are fairly minor ("humans killed some of our gods first, but we finished them off" -> "we killed our gods") but no indication of large scale removal (or rewrite) of history.

    The very notion that historians accross the races would take their version as canon, or even seriously, is simply ludicrous. Even charr historians should be screaming about blatant propaganda and rewriting history to fit once political agenda.

    Again, this doesn't happen. Nowhere do we ever see the Durmand Priory - for example - proclaim the charr were in the right, or that the charr killed their all of their gods on their own.

    And the only propaganda to be is still fitting the current political agenda (for now), since the human-charr conflict and the anti-Flame conflict are still relatively fresh. There was no propaganda the Flame created that hasn't been revoked, for example.

    • The problem is in the other part of the world, where the human centric view should be predominant (better documented, cross checked, closer to the fact, with physical and episcopal evidence, backed by administrative records...).

    I disagree with this, to a degree at least. Humans should have better documentation, but that doesn't mean human history wouldn't be at all biased as well. So it sure as hell would not be "closer to the fact", nor would it have anything to be cross checked with other than charr view of history. And most administrative records of Ascalon would have been destroyed by the Searing (paper burns easily, you know).

    On top of that, asura and norn wouldn't give a kitten about the human perspective. What they'd cross check human records with would be charr records, and they'd take the two against each other. Which, I feel, is what the Durmand Priory does. Mind you the game doesn't have many books or dialogue talking about the human-charr conflict, so it's hard to say they do this.

    • Also, charr fighting ghost understand that they fight mainly against civilians fueled by desesperation. They leave on a daily basis with the consequence of the searing and should have first hand experience of how twisted their version of history is. This is never acknowledged.

    You're expecting rational from a warmongering race. They do not view Adelbern's curse to be excplitily a "this is our fault" but they blame the person who committed the curse, Adelbern, who is accepted as having been insane by all parties involved. Including non-Foefire ghosts, like Savione, who firsthand witnessed Adelbern's descent into madness.

    Humans don't blame the charr for the Foefire curse either. They blame Adelbern - not just for the curse itself, but for Adelbern racism against Krytans, refusal to accept aid from Kryta, and his paranoia against the Ebon Vanguard and sending these established war heroes away from the battlefield (granted, this ended up proving the saving grace of Ascalonians, but it completely sealed the fate of Ascalon City).

    • Saying that Ascalon was Charr territory thousand(s) years ago is like saying that the Mediterranean world was Roman a thousand years ago. That wouldn't justify Italian going all out on a conquest war, nuking whole country, enslaving and eating the survivors, replacing baguettes by pizzas and engaging in ethnical cleansing of everything non Italian.

    Or like saying Israel belongs to the Jews because they had it over two thousand years ago.

    That is no doubt the exact inspiration for the view of who Ascalon "belongs" to. At the end of WWII, Jews were given a country in Israel , despite it belonging to another group, or something along those lines (Warning: It's been about 10 years since I read up on the topic, and that was in High School with a ton of censorship of facts throughout the history classes). This sparked conflicts left and right that still go on, to varying degrees, today.

    On one hand, there are people who believe that Side A deserves the land. On the other hand, there are other people who believe Side B deserves the land. And then there are people who believe both can share the land (if the world were perfect, they'd be the ones in the right; but as it isn't, and there's too much bitter hatred between Sides A and B, they're wrong).

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • witcher.3197witcher.3197 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 25, 2019

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    ArenaNet isn't saying "the charr were in the right to retake Ascalon", they're saying "the charr believe they were in the right to retake Ascalon."

    They do. They 100% do. One of the earliest cinematics of GW2 introduces us to the Ascalon Catacombs, and what are some of the first lines in there?

    This was originally Charr land. The humans pushed us out and built Ascalon on top of it. Over 200 years ago, we took our land back.

    I know what your response to this would be. "But that's just how the Charr see it, Anet isn't trying to do anything here" - I'd like to point out that it was one of the earliest introductions to the lore of GW for a potential new player, before the release of GW2. This line is also fairly irrelevant to the actual dungeon, but they put it in for a reason. Why do we have to know that it was originally Charr land? What does that have to do with fighting 200 year old human ghosts? They could've just focused on the Foefire instead.

    I'll tell you why. Because Anet wants to drive home the narrative that humans = evil, charr = good guys who just took back what's theirs. Anet wants us to forget GW1's version of the story, they want to put the whole thing on new foundations so this is what new people will take as fact, and this is what they'll defend to the bitter end. See this thread.

    When was the last time GW2 players were exposed to the wrongdoings of the Charr commited against humans? Was there even a time? From what I recall we were supposed to take the Charr's side each and every single time.

    And humans don't "have to just concede it". Part of the peace treaty with the charr has been humans regaining some lands of souteastern Ascalon (namely that bit nestled between the Dragonbrand and Blazeridge Mountains). Humans are conceding the majority of Ascalon because they're losing, not because "the charr deserve Ascalon more."

    Are they losing though? Last time I checked the Charr couldn't do anything with Ebonhawke for hundreds of years and were starting to fall apart because of having so many enemies (humans, ghosts, flame legion, dragons) and no allies. Bangar too realizes, along with people in this thread, that the Charr are weaker than ever.

    Humans are conceding because Anet wants Charr to be playable. Simple as that. Otherwise it'd be the perfect opportunity for a counterattack. Humans beat the Charr by killing the Khan Ur and dealing with the divided legions, they are even more divided now.

    And "who Ascalon belongs to" is the core of the "amnesty to the charr" situation, since the core part of that "amnesty" is the charr taking Ascalon. And humans are not being painted as villains anywhere.

    By amnesty I meant we're supposed to forget every wrong they ever did and just sue for peace.

    The only people who don't see what Anet is doing here are those who simply don't want to.

    I want to clarify something. I don't just see the Charr as pitch black, and I don't hate them in that sense. Pyre is one of my favorite characters in GW1 and made me want to roll a Charr ranger for GW2. I think the Charr have great potential for the lore. But to me it seems like Anet wanted to tell a "greyer" story in GW2, making the Charr not be purely antagonistic. My problem with this portrayal is that they went completely overboard with it, ended up continously favoring the Charr version of the story and making Ascalonians seem like the villains. They really did Ascalon dirty in GW2.

    Basically in GW1 we get to see Ascalonians as the good guys, in GW2 we see the Charr as the definitive good guys. This doesn't make the story grey, only gives the vibe that GW1 doesn't matter and we should roll with GW2's version because that's the most recent and Anet's known to retcon the lore when it suits them. I think they missed the mark.

    What I'm trying to say is, if the intention was to make things grey in GW2, they should've painted it grey in GW2. What they are doing instead is just flip which side is bad in the sequel and stick with it, without ever showing the other side. This is either intentional and Charr favoritism, or a botched attempt at a grey story. Either way currently it's only going to alienate some long time fans. Since it's been consistent for 7 years, I'm going with the former for now.

  • By the time Guild Wars 2 had started, the game lore had 3 games worth of entirely and purely human perspective in all things and only 1 expansion that included a few other perspectives. ArenaNet had to do some work to flesh out their world in Guild Wars 2. I think part of the problem are seeing is that most of Ascalon is now charr territory, and because of the lack of humans, most of what we hear is entirely from the charr point of view. And much of it is obvious propaganda, and in many cases is obviously wrong. I believe this is intentional to show that the charr perspective is biased. And we seem to be forgetting that we have the entire city of ebonhawke to offer the opposing perspective.

  • To add onto the last post before doing any sort of longer reply, Grothmar Valley is great because it shows us that the Charr are changing, but there is still a good mix of anti-human, and "pro-human" elements to the charr.

    Hell, there is numerous implications that Renegades are sabotaging or attacking the various other merchants on their way up. One described losing a few wagons on the way up. Another conversation you can find is a Charr asking about "The Sylvari with the water-proof baskets." and being informed the merchants entire stock got burnt on the way north. "Oh well, accidents happen." "Yeah.. 'accidents'. "

    This prologue showed us loud and clear that the Charr are diverse, and in this area, the groups that hate humans are the loud ones. In Ascalon, it's more of the Charr who don't mind humanity/peace. Hell, in some cases in Grothmar are Charr who are neutral/okay with humans but are basically being bullied into agreement. Outside of the Ooze pit there are two charr who talk about finding a human inside and tossing him out. One talks about how he could've gotten seriously hurt. The other goes about how humans in general should be hurt/defeated/messed up. The first? "Um... yeah. Yes sir."

  • perilisk.1874perilisk.1874 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    ArenaNet is not pushing the narrative that "humans = evil, charr = good guys", and Bound By Blood is proof of that. Because Bangar is evil, and the entire charr race is depicted as a race that needs war to function.

    Well, it's more a critique of their essentially fascist social organization. The Olmakhan don't seem to have that issue, so no reason to think the culture can't adapt. But in part, it will probably be made to adapt by the wanton slaughter of those that are on the wrong side, same way that Flame Legion was eventually reformed. If most of them get transformed into icebrood, it will tend to further eliminate the moral considerations of such slaughter.

    Ebonhawke was holding on by threads supported solely by Divinity's Reach. The only reason the stalemate was able to occur was because of Divinity's Reach, so if Jennah at any point pulled resources, Ebonhawke would be screwed.

    Those resources were able to bypass Charr territorial control due to the Asura gate, which is probably one reason why they are particularly disliked. And the Sylvari were within the past few years outed as dragon minions (and Mordremoth managed to do some damage in Charr territory). The only playable race they don't have beef with is the Norn, pretty much.

  • perilisk.1874perilisk.1874 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kalavier.1097 said:
    This prologue showed us loud and clear that the Charr are diverse, and in this area, the groups that hate humans are the loud ones. In Ascalon, it's more of the Charr who don't mind humanity/peace. Hell, in some cases in Grothmar are Charr who are neutral/okay with humans but are basically being bullied into agreement. Outside of the Ooze pit there are two charr who talk about finding a human inside and tossing him out. One talks about how he could've gotten seriously hurt. The other goes about how humans in general should be hurt/defeated/messed up. The first? "Um... yeah. Yes sir."

    But there's also an Ash superior chewing out her subordinate for being bigoted, so the pressure cuts both ways.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.