About the Charr victim complex, and Anet's hatred for Ascalon - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

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

13

Comments

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    I think my primary issue with that Konig is how Pyre Fierceshot and his Warband frame the event as well as how they considered humans around them. They weren't a terribly empathetic group of people to say the least, one of them confusing the Ascendants for Pyres slaves at first and generally just despising humanity above and beyond even how humans viewed them in turn. Pyre spoke of the Searing with pride, and it's little wonder since Vatlaaw Doomtooh was his father and a scout who had a hand in making the Searing possible. Now i'm unsure how much Charr actually know about Bonfaaz Burntfur, his history could be heavily embellished for all I know to remove the bit about the Searing, but he is idolized and few Charr that i'v seen express any kind of remorse or fault over the event in either game.

    Leads me to believe that while yes, the Shaman Caste was deceiving the Charr about the nature of their gods, the Charr were more angry about that then anything they visited upon anyone else.

  • Sylum.1806Sylum.1806 Member ✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @witcher.3197 said:

    @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.

    1. You keep repeating ArenaNet is spitting on GW1 and "Ascalon" (I'm assuming you're referring to Ascalonian Humans and the Human kingdom of Ascalon, and not the land of Ascalon) but you forget that you can only play as Humans in GW1. Of course the POV is gonna be pro-human and anti-Charr.
    2. Characters not being able to have their own distinct POV is bad writing. Which you only seem to begrudgingly acknowledge in your later responses after more reasonable people pointed out how ridiculously narrow-minded and personal your original post was.
    3. The real evil of war is that all sides are convinced they are on the right side. Everyone thinks they are the protagonist of the story. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's complicated. A good story-teller is supposed to show that, not tell it to you point-blank. You are having dissonance because you are confusing the subjective POV of the Ascalonians from GW1 and the Charr from GW2 as the objective POV of ArenaNet and that is pretty blinkered. To then blame them for having a personal agenda when they are depicting how two sides see the same conflict differently in a very realistic manner (not so different from our real-world tribal conflicts) when YOU are the one taking this personally is beyond ridiculous.
  • Ra Ra.9423Ra Ra.9423 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @RyuDragnier.9476 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    While we have your attention, do you mind clarifying the nature of the ruins for Cathedral of Flames and The Ooze Pits? In GW1, it was never truly clarified what those structures' origins were (CoF housed spoils from Ascalon, Ooze Pits had a Grenth mural, but all dungeons used a mixture of art assets, and only the Catacombs of Kathandrax was given origin lore: dwarven). When delving through, best guess I could gather was that Cathedral of Flames was charr-made (and, alongside Rragar's Menagerie, the only stone structures of theirs). For GW2, it seems you gave them Ascalonian ruins, but it's unclear if they were built there by humans (if so, why build underground?) or ruins taken by the charr (perhaps as part of the spoils of war), or it's just a case of "generic ruins" being used (wouldn't be the first time Ascalonian ruins got used as generic ruins)?

    I actually asked about the lore on Cathedral of Flames just yesterday. Doesn't seem to be much of anything on it, and I really want to know why it's there, who made it, and what was it used for (outside of the weapon depository, I mean).

    It's my headcannon from reading the Tyrian timeline and lore, that CoF was built by the Ascalonians (probably also during the time they were building the Great Northern Wall, in a 900 year period), given that the ghosts that are fighting the charr (and you) are human: Murakai, her Steward. The Master, and others. After taking Ascalon from the Charr, they built the complex to store their treasures, then when the Charr recovered that land, they killed all within, and are faced with outraged ghosts. The Master Dungeon guide has only this to say about Cof:

    • _Once freed, Pyre's warband sacked the cathedral, looking for anything of value. In their search, they unearthed a blocked passage. Clearing the debris revealed a stash of treasure plundered from Ascalonian ruins... but there was more. The **spirits of those slain for these spoils of war **had attached themselves to the treasure, haunting the vaults. Worse yet, a powerful Necromancer named Murakai dwelt among them. She used the creatures' unliving essence to create a storm of souls, which she planned to unleash upon human and Charr alike. It fell to us to lay these disembodied spirits to rest and to suspend Murakai's wrath, if only for a time. _

    Admitted Alt-aholic
    Darkhaven, Asuran Gaters[ZPM]

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    At the same time the Relics within are from Rin, and in Murakai's case they are from Sumeria, indicating it was plundered loot that they brought with them to the north.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sylum.1806 said:

    @witcher.3197 said:

    @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.

    1. You keep repeating ArenaNet is spitting on GW1 and "Ascalon" (I'm assuming you're referring to Ascalonian Humans and the Human kingdom of Ascalon, and not the land of Ascalon) but you forget that you can only play as Humans in GW1. Of course the POV is gonna be pro-human and anti-Charr.
    2. Characters not being able to have their own distinct POV is bad writing. Which you only seem to begrudgingly acknowledge in your later responses after more reasonable people pointed out how ridiculously narrow-minded and personal your original post was.
    3. The real evil of war is that all sides are convinced they are on the right side. Everyone thinks they are the protagonist of the story. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's complicated. A good story-teller is supposed to show that, not tell it to you point-blank. You are having dissonance because you are confusing the subjective POV of the Ascalonians from GW1 and the Charr from GW2 as the objective POV of ArenaNet and that is pretty blinkered. To then blame them for having a personal agenda when they are depicting how two sides see the same conflict differently in a very realistic manner (not so different from our real-world tribal conflicts) when YOU are the one taking this personally is beyond ridiculous.

    To go along with the last bit said here the humans ARE the evil, They and their gods are 100% the cause of almost all the major conflicts and turmoil on tyria. They committed GENOCIDE pf the "Lesser" races for not being like them, and have led conquest after conquest. We only saw their narrative In GW1 but in the further lore, the story goes that when they came here they followed balthazar (A psychopath) to conquer the world. The humans are JUST as xenophobic as the charr are, and frankly I feel the charr are one of the few who have the rite to be. They've been hunted and when they fought back, they found the humans had gods on their side ones who ONLY cared about the well being of the humans. I don't believe balthazar ever changed but that we saw him differently because for the first time, our views and purpose did not align with his.

    Im a norn player because of what they were in guild wars 1, the humans not being favorites here? Really. They've been center stage the entire game and litterally have had so many redemption arcs within this story alone. They are becoming fast friends with iron, ash and to some extent blood legion and we even have blood brothers forming from soliders who fight together (See logan and Rytlock.) Looking at the larger narrative the charr are basically a lot like the humans, both worshiped powers beyond them and both got scorned. The charr chose to industrialize and focus on weapons of war, they chose to grow while humans still cling to the Six whom of which are some of the most evil beings in the setting. The tales of them do not speak of fond happy times, they speak of how cruel they could and would be and how the humans were merely their "Play-things".

    Lyssa came and convinced men to fight only to die~ Rather then aid them, or even warn them.
    Balthazar willingly consumed the souls of his fallen, and tormented those he deemed "Cowardly".
    Melandru killed a mans son, for killing a creature that had harmed him and then left him for dead.
    Dwayana DROVE PEOPLE MAD, by her shear appearance and presence.
    Abbadon held secrets, and Kormir continued in his legacy as well denied us any help regardless of if we needed it.

    Grenth is the only one to show compassion and even mercy out of all of them, though even then he still claimed the life of a woman who murdered her abusive lech of a husband for all he had done to her and her children. So looking at the humans religion, their way of life and the ideas they come from and how they believe they are superior to ALL the other races INCLUDING the norn/charr/asura/sylvari I would say the charr were the victims. But due to their primal nature they retaliated and decided to wage war; The norn and asuran we hadn't met yet and the sylvari had yet to be born. Im sure that had the humans met the norn prior to the events that transpired when they got here the outcome would be much the same. But I believe the norn would of killed them all because the spirits in my eyes are stronger than the gods, the spirits fought jormag when the gods wouldn't even try. Kormir even stated that the dragons were STRONGER than the six which is why they wouldn't fight, because should one of them fall the outcome would be catastrophic.

    The story isn't about who was the victim though, or who was the winner. The story is about two groups of people and two differing species setting aside their differences and coming to realize they aren't that different. The story is a redemption for both of them and a new chapter for them, one well executed and one that has been going since we met Pyre for the first time in Eye of the north. If you still can't see that neither side was the villain fully and neither side won much of anything, rather they lost tons of lives and even almost collapsed as civilizations you are either willfully ignorant to the purpose of the tale or choose to pick a side on the opposite end of a line no one drew in the first place.

  • I've been down this road with some folks back on the old forums. Some people are outright religious about the events of Ascalon from GW1. I'm not sure if they're role playing or they have a legitimate fanaticism about it half the time.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    I mean to be perfectly blunt, if saying 'Slavery is bad' and 'creating nations with power systems that serve as fertile grounds for Fascism is something we should generally avoid' is ethno-centric then i'm perfectly comfortable with the label. People seem to be under this belief that purely because the United States, Great Britan, France, Russia, Mongolia, the Roman Empire, etc built their nations on oceans of blood then one shouldn't impose their values on other nations, fictional or real, because they have no room to talk. That seems, frankly, insane. If you're unable to critique something, culture included, then it just gives people a free pass to do virtually anything under the guise of subjective morality.

  • ugrakarma.9416ugrakarma.9416 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @Loesh.4697 said:
    I mean to be perfectly blunt, if saying 'Slavery is bad' and 'creating nations with power systems that serve as fertile grounds for Fascism is something we should generally avoid' is ethno-centric then i'm perfectly comfortable with the label. People seem to be under this belief that purely because the United States, Great Britan, France, Russia, Mongolia, the Roman Empire, etc built their nations on oceans of blood then one shouldn't impose their values on other nations, fictional or real, because they have no room to talk. That seems, frankly, insane. If you're unable to critique something, culture included, then it just gives people a free pass to do virtually anything under the guise of subjective morality.

    U can argue that today fascism will cause trouble, but hardly will succedd with that in 30's where only 15% of world population lived in "democracy" and all that democracies applied "discriminatory" rules to allow someone to vote. Switzerland for example, only allowed woman to vote on 1971, thats just 48 years ago.

    To be clear is what anachronism means: u cant argue where best soccer teams was in 1200 because theres no soccer teams in XIII century to someone who lived at time argue whos is the best. In the same way in 30s some variation of authoritarian regime was the rule.

    In fantasy world narrative, if the writters made use of anachronism, its lead to a The Flintstones like narrative, when portrait peoples of other eras/worlds just like "our modern people" with only difference that they use a stone club instead of a computer, of course some anachronism is unavoidable, otherwise the history will be boring, for example people marring by choice, if they just write the history like "in real world was" theres will no romantic couples, just arranged marriages.

    When people argue whos have right to owner Ascalon or charr are 'violent' was the case anachronism, Tyrians simply dont bother much with that, thats because much of Tyria is inspired in various of our ancient cultures. In the past the ownership of city/state/region sometimes was decided even in a duel! not in the base of "whos put the feet first here".

    "It's a testament to the folly of the humans and their gods. They say Arah was sacred, but all I see is one big dragon nest."(Rytlock Brimstone)

  • ThatOddOne.4387ThatOddOne.4387 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Sylum.1806 said:

    @witcher.3197 said:

    @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.

    1. You keep repeating ArenaNet is spitting on GW1 and "Ascalon" (I'm assuming you're referring to Ascalonian Humans and the Human kingdom of Ascalon, and not the land of Ascalon) but you forget that you can only play as Humans in GW1. Of course the POV is gonna be pro-human and anti-Charr.
    2. Characters not being able to have their own distinct POV is bad writing. Which you only seem to begrudgingly acknowledge in your later responses after more reasonable people pointed out how ridiculously narrow-minded and personal your original post was.
    3. The real evil of war is that all sides are convinced they are on the right side. Everyone thinks they are the protagonist of the story. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's complicated. A good story-teller is supposed to show that, not tell it to you point-blank. You are having dissonance because you are confusing the subjective POV of the Ascalonians from GW1 and the Charr from GW2 as the objective POV of ArenaNet and that is pretty blinkered. To then blame them for having a personal agenda when they are depicting how two sides see the same conflict differently in a very realistic manner (not so different from our real-world tribal conflicts) when YOU are the one taking this personally is beyond ridiculous.

    To go along with the last bit said here the humans ARE the evil, They and their gods are 100% the cause of almost all the major conflicts and turmoil on tyria. They committed GENOCIDE pf the "Lesser" races for not being like them, and have led conquest after conquest. We only saw their narrative In GW1 but in the further lore, the story goes that when they came here they followed balthazar (A psychopath) to conquer the world. The humans are JUST as xenophobic as the charr are, and frankly I feel the charr are one of the few who have the rite to be. They've been hunted and when they fought back, they found the humans had gods on their side ones who ONLY cared about the well being of the humans. I don't believe balthazar ever changed but that we saw him differently because for the first time, our views and purpose did not align with his.

    Im a norn player because of what they were in guild wars 1, the humans not being favorites here? Really. They've been center stage the entire game and litterally have had so many redemption arcs within this story alone. They are becoming fast friends with iron, ash and to some extent blood legion and we even have blood brothers forming from soliders who fight together (See logan and Rytlock.) Looking at the larger narrative the charr are basically a lot like the humans, both worshiped powers beyond them and both got scorned. The charr chose to industrialize and focus on weapons of war, they chose to grow while humans still cling to the Six whom of which are some of the most evil beings in the setting. The tales of them do not speak of fond happy times, they speak of how cruel they could and would be and how the humans were merely their "Play-things".

    Lyssa came and convinced men to fight only to die~ Rather then aid them, or even warn them.
    Balthazar willingly consumed the souls of his fallen, and tormented those he deemed "Cowardly".
    Melandru killed a mans son, for killing a creature that had harmed him and then left him for dead.
    Dwayana DROVE PEOPLE MAD, by her shear appearance and presence.
    Abbadon held secrets, and Kormir continued in his legacy as well denied us any help regardless of if we needed it.

    Grenth is the only one to show compassion and even mercy out of all of them, though even then he still claimed the life of a woman who murdered her abusive lech of a husband for all he had done to her and her children. So looking at the humans religion, their way of life and the ideas they come from and how they believe they are superior to ALL the other races INCLUDING the norn/charr/asura/sylvari I would say the charr were the victims. But due to their primal nature they retaliated and decided to wage war; The norn and asuran we hadn't met yet and the sylvari had yet to be born. Im sure that had the humans met the norn prior to the events that transpired when they got here the outcome would be much the same. But I believe the norn would of killed them all because the spirits in my eyes are stronger than the gods, the spirits fought jormag when the gods wouldn't even try. Kormir even stated that the dragons were STRONGER than the six which is why they wouldn't fight, because should one of them fall the outcome would be catastrophic.

    The story isn't about who was the victim though, or who was the winner. The story is about two groups of people and two differing species setting aside their differences and coming to realize they aren't that different. The story is a redemption for both of them and a new chapter for them, one well executed and one that has been going since we met Pyre for the first time in Eye of the north. If you still can't see that neither side was the villain fully and neither side won much of anything, rather they lost tons of lives and even almost collapsed as civilizations you are either willfully ignorant to the purpose of the tale or choose to pick a side on the opposite end of a line no one drew in the first place.

    Actually... No.

    The humans have not genocided "lesser races", give examples, don't just say it. On the other hand we know the charr HAVE during their time on Tyria.

    Balthazar was not a psychopath, you're wrong, and he did change. We know this for a fact, that you deny it doesn't make it true.

    The parables of the Gods you are referring to are just that, parables, and hardly proof that the Gods are bad and can be interpreted in benevolent ways, if they even happened.

    • Lyssa inspired those soldiers to fight regardless, that they died is irrelevant, she did not personally kill them, but she gave them the courage to fight and their contribution to the battle could have made the difference, but we don't know, and she certainly didn't have a hand in making sure each and every one of those soldiers die.
    • Balthazar consumed the soul of a singular coward so that cowardice could not further harm others, he took the coward's shame as his own.
    • Melandru did not kill anyone. There is no implication that she did. She was simply saying in that parable that animals killing humans and humans killing animals is the way of nature. That is not malicious and there's no implication she personally made sure the guy's family got eaten by wolves.
    • Same for Dwayna. She did not intentionally blind people, she did not intentionally make sure that a tree fell on a guys house after he denied someone refuge from a storm.
    • Secrets are not automatically bad, that's by far the most ridiculous of your statements.
    • The wife in question still committed murder.

    So... No, everything you said was wrong. (Including Dragons being stronger than the Gods). The charr are not victims, and whilst I disagree with the OP's tone, he has a point.

    It's all very well going on about the "Charr PoV" but the problem is that PoV has next to no redeeming qualities, even when it was touched on in the so-called human-centric GW1. The charr didn't rebel because they felt bad about what happened to the humans, they liked what happened to the humans, they rebelled against other charr because they were being controlled and tricked. This still doesn't make them the victims, because they still ultimately approved of the Searing and all the humans who died as a result of their war. (And continued to prosecute it even after they overthrew the Flame Legion, which should tell you all you need to know)

    And not a single charr character has ever shown regret for what happened, whilst you see plenty of humans regretting the actions of their own race - Including, again, in the so-called human-centric GW1 (Rurik and Adelbern), where whilst the main characters and only playable race were humans, it still showcased just how bad humans can be.

    Quite a few of the storylines in GW1 are about humans helping other races, as well, namely asura, dwarves and norn (AND EVEN CHARR), so I don't really see how the accusation that only a human PoV was espoused in GW1 holds water. Did the humans make war on the dwarves and norn? No they didn't. Did the charr? Yes, they did. There are significant differences in the characters of these two races and how they act towards the world they inhabit that people are willfully ignoring in favour of this charr apologist stance because they cannot possibly fathom the mighty, unbeatable charr having lost to the evil invading humans at one point in history.

    People can gurn and moan about how the humans displaced the charr and centaur but I'm pretty sure the dwarves preferred to have the humans as neighbours over the charr, and I'm sure sylvari and asura in modern Tyria prefer to have humans as their closest other neighbours over vast tracts of lands owned by marauding, vicious centaurs. So there's some perspective for you.

  • Ultramex.1506Ultramex.1506 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    I cringed at these "this Races is more evil than my favorite Races" posts while i'm setting here and saw that both Races have committed atrocities at each other for too long, unfortunately it's just gonna keep going because elders alway talk about the future but send the young and promising to their death for their "fantasy land".

  • I've seen people complain about the Charr no longer being faceless generic evil villains who just want to kill everything how many times now. Basically ever since GW2 launched, hell if I was around before I probably would have seen it with Eye of the North. And having gone back to play GW1, I legitimately do not get the big deal about pre-searing Ascalon. It's a tutorial zone. It's pretty generic medieval fantasy. I guess it sucks that it got messed up, but it's a video game tutorial that lasts maybe a few hours if you're not rushing it. How are people so attached to it? Are they that dedicated to their roleplay?

    But beside the point, if you don't like the GW2 version of the lore, which has been fairly consistent since the launch of GW2 (and the novels too), why don't you go back to playing GW1 instead of making yourself mad about updated lore? The option's there. The servers are still up. The old 'lore' you love is still there. Old Ascalon, is still there. Go play that if you hate the GW2 lore so much when it's only been expanding concepts that have been around since launch (in this case, the idea that the Charr aren't just big bad evil dudes who want to take over the world but are a war-based culture who, despite the atrocities they've committed, have also been wronged in the past), not changing anything. They aren't "twisting the knife in the wound" by acknowledging that both sides of the Charr/Human war did some messed up stuff. Like, unironically if that's how you feel about this story I think you need to see a therapist, because this is not normal.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    @ugrakarma.9416 said:

    @Loesh.4697 said:
    I mean to be perfectly blunt, if saying 'Slavery is bad' and 'creating nations with power systems that serve as fertile grounds for Fascism is something we should generally avoid' is ethno-centric then i'm perfectly comfortable with the label. People seem to be under this belief that purely because the United States, Great Britan, France, Russia, Mongolia, the Roman Empire, etc built their nations on oceans of blood then one shouldn't impose their values on other nations, fictional or real, because they have no room to talk. That seems, frankly, insane. If you're unable to critique something, culture included, then it just gives people a free pass to do virtually anything under the guise of subjective morality.

    U can argue that today fascism will cause trouble, but hardly will succedd with that in 30's where only 15% of world population lived in "democracy" and all that democracies applied "discriminatory" rules to allow someone to vote. Switzerland for example, only allowed woman to vote on 1971, thats just 48 years ago.

    To be clear is what anachronism means: u cant argue where best soccer teams was in 1200 because theres no soccer teams in XIII century to someone who lived at time argue whos is the best. In the same way in 30s some variation of authoritarian regime was the rule.

    In fantasy world narrative, if the writters made use of anachronism, its lead to a The Flintstones like narrative, when portrait peoples of other eras/worlds just like "our modern people" with only difference that they use a stone club instead of a computer, of course some anachronism is unavoidable, otherwise the history will be boring, for example people marring by choice, if they just write the history like "in real world was" theres will no romantic couples, just arranged marriages.

    When people argue whos have right to owner Ascalon or charr are 'violent' was the case anachronism, Tyrians simply dont bother much with that, thats because much of Tyria is inspired in various of our ancient cultures. In the past the ownership of city/state/region sometimes was decided even in a duel! not in the base of "whos put the feet first here".

    I actually disagree with this entirely just based on how the NPCs seem to talk, they all seem very modern, fairly modern in Guild Wars 1 even. That's something that isn't even true of the Charr themselves who are argue a right over Ascalon due to it's being their ancestral land. I think that in and of itself is in part why people are so critical of them, even by their own records they aren't the original owners but they like to pretend as such which makes them fit in much more closely with more modern societies as conquerors. Sure the idea's these nations were based on were old, but the actual ideas they expouse are not, with for example the Charr basically undergoing a female civil rights movement or transgender people being accepted in Lions Arch.

    Both of those definitely weren't common for the time periods the setting draws upon, but hardly anyone blinks at them. To me Guild Wars was, if anything, deliberately forcing an anachronism to make us examine old cultures with modern eyes.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThatOddOne.4387 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Sylum.1806 said:

    @witcher.3197 said:

    @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.

    1. You keep repeating ArenaNet is spitting on GW1 and "Ascalon" (I'm assuming you're referring to Ascalonian Humans and the Human kingdom of Ascalon, and not the land of Ascalon) but you forget that you can only play as Humans in GW1. Of course the POV is gonna be pro-human and anti-Charr.
    2. Characters not being able to have their own distinct POV is bad writing. Which you only seem to begrudgingly acknowledge in your later responses after more reasonable people pointed out how ridiculously narrow-minded and personal your original post was.
    3. The real evil of war is that all sides are convinced they are on the right side. Everyone thinks they are the protagonist of the story. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's complicated. A good story-teller is supposed to show that, not tell it to you point-blank. You are having dissonance because you are confusing the subjective POV of the Ascalonians from GW1 and the Charr from GW2 as the objective POV of ArenaNet and that is pretty blinkered. To then blame them for having a personal agenda when they are depicting how two sides see the same conflict differently in a very realistic manner (not so different from our real-world tribal conflicts) when YOU are the one taking this personally is beyond ridiculous.

    To go along with the last bit said here the humans ARE the evil, They and their gods are 100% the cause of almost all the major conflicts and turmoil on tyria. They committed GENOCIDE pf the "Lesser" races for not being like them, and have led conquest after conquest. We only saw their narrative In GW1 but in the further lore, the story goes that when they came here they followed balthazar (A psychopath) to conquer the world. The humans are JUST as xenophobic as the charr are, and frankly I feel the charr are one of the few who have the rite to be. They've been hunted and when they fought back, they found the humans had gods on their side ones who ONLY cared about the well being of the humans. I don't believe balthazar ever changed but that we saw him differently because for the first time, our views and purpose did not align with his.

    Im a norn player because of what they were in guild wars 1, the humans not being favorites here? Really. They've been center stage the entire game and litterally have had so many redemption arcs within this story alone. They are becoming fast friends with iron, ash and to some extent blood legion and we even have blood brothers forming from soliders who fight together (See logan and Rytlock.) Looking at the larger narrative the charr are basically a lot like the humans, both worshiped powers beyond them and both got scorned. The charr chose to industrialize and focus on weapons of war, they chose to grow while humans still cling to the Six whom of which are some of the most evil beings in the setting. The tales of them do not speak of fond happy times, they speak of how cruel they could and would be and how the humans were merely their "Play-things".

    Lyssa came and convinced men to fight only to die~ Rather then aid them, or even warn them.
    Balthazar willingly consumed the souls of his fallen, and tormented those he deemed "Cowardly".
    Melandru killed a mans son, for killing a creature that had harmed him and then left him for dead.
    Dwayana DROVE PEOPLE MAD, by her shear appearance and presence.
    Abbadon held secrets, and Kormir continued in his legacy as well denied us any help regardless of if we needed it.

    Grenth is the only one to show compassion and even mercy out of all of them, though even then he still claimed the life of a woman who murdered her abusive lech of a husband for all he had done to her and her children. So looking at the humans religion, their way of life and the ideas they come from and how they believe they are superior to ALL the other races INCLUDING the norn/charr/asura/sylvari I would say the charr were the victims. But due to their primal nature they retaliated and decided to wage war; The norn and asuran we hadn't met yet and the sylvari had yet to be born. Im sure that had the humans met the norn prior to the events that transpired when they got here the outcome would be much the same. But I believe the norn would of killed them all because the spirits in my eyes are stronger than the gods, the spirits fought jormag when the gods wouldn't even try. Kormir even stated that the dragons were STRONGER than the six which is why they wouldn't fight, because should one of them fall the outcome would be catastrophic.

    The story isn't about who was the victim though, or who was the winner. The story is about two groups of people and two differing species setting aside their differences and coming to realize they aren't that different. The story is a redemption for both of them and a new chapter for them, one well executed and one that has been going since we met Pyre for the first time in Eye of the north. If you still can't see that neither side was the villain fully and neither side won much of anything, rather they lost tons of lives and even almost collapsed as civilizations you are either willfully ignorant to the purpose of the tale or choose to pick a side on the opposite end of a line no one drew in the first place.

    Actually... No.

    The humans have not genocided "lesser races", give examples, don't just say it. On the other hand we know the charr HAVE during their time on Tyria.

    Balthazar was not a psychopath, you're wrong, and he did change. We know this for a fact, that you deny it doesn't make it true.

    The parables of the Gods you are referring to are just that, parables, and hardly proof that the Gods are bad and can be interpreted in benevolent ways, if they even happened.

    • Lyssa inspired those soldiers to fight regardless, that they died is irrelevant, she did not personally kill them, but she gave them the courage to fight and their contribution to the battle could have made the difference, but we don't know, and she certainly didn't have a hand in making sure each and every one of those soldiers die.
    • Balthazar consumed the soul of a singular coward so that cowardice could not further harm others, he took the coward's shame as his own.
    • Melandru did not kill anyone. There is no implication that she did. She was simply saying in that parable that animals killing humans and humans killing animals is the way of nature. That is not malicious and there's no implication she personally made sure the guy's family got eaten by wolves.
    • Same for Dwayna. She did not intentionally blind people, she did not intentionally make sure that a tree fell on a guys house after he denied someone refuge from a storm.
    • Secrets are not automatically bad, that's by far the most ridiculous of your statements.
    • The wife in question still committed murder.

    So... No, everything you said was wrong. (Including Dragons being stronger than the Gods). The charr are not victims, and whilst I disagree with the OP's tone, he has a point.

    It's all very well going on about the "Charr PoV" but the problem is that PoV has next to no redeeming qualities, even when it was touched on in the so-called human-centric GW1. The charr didn't rebel because they felt bad about what happened to the humans, they liked what happened to the humans, they rebelled against other charr because they were being controlled and tricked. This still doesn't make them the victims, because they still ultimately approved of the Searing and all the humans who died as a result of their war. (And continued to prosecute it even after they overthrew the Flame Legion, which should tell you all you need to know)

    And not a single charr character has ever shown regret for what happened, whilst you see plenty of humans regretting the actions of their own race - Including, again, in the so-called human-centric GW1 (Rurik and Adelbern), where whilst the main characters and only playable race were humans, it still showcased just how bad humans can be.

    Quite a few of the storylines in GW1 are about humans helping other races, as well, namely asura, dwarves and norn (AND EVEN CHARR), so I don't really see how the accusation that only a human PoV was espoused in GW1 holds water. Did the humans make war on the dwarves and norn? No they didn't. Did the charr? Yes, they did. There are significant differences in the characters of these two races and how they act towards the world they inhabit that people are willfully ignoring in favour of this charr apologist stance because they cannot possibly fathom the mighty, unbeatable charr having lost to the evil invading humans at one point in history.

    People can gurn and moan about how the humans displaced the charr and centaur but I'm pretty sure the dwarves preferred to have the humans as neighbours over the charr, and I'm sure sylvari and asura in modern Tyria prefer to have humans as their closest other neighbours over vast tracts of lands owned by marauding, vicious centaurs. So there's some perspective for you.

    King adelbern was Xenophobic, the canthans were xenophobic and as it turns out even the citizens of divinities reach share xenophobia. The charr do as well so literally they are the same in that respect and to say otherwise is ignorance. Kind Adelbern wanted no one but humans to live and keep ascalon, the Vizer sunk his ENTIRE nation and killed off its people in a "Im taking my ball and going home" moment.

    Humans helping other races? Yes when it suited them, which is a parallel of how our species works in the real world. Most people don't do good unless they directly bennefit; The norn got help from the humans because the humans needed the norn. The dwarves only got help because they were needed durring prophecies and the stone summit were an enemy to both. In eye of the north the only reason the dwarves got involved was for the sake of killing their long time enemy the destroyers, The humans are NOT the victims of anything but their own hubris.

    The gods a parallel to greek gods, they are neither good or evil but are whimsical. The ONLY RACE they care about are the humans, so when and if tyria goes to explode I promise the humans will be whisked away by their gods but the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves. They are generic fantasy drivel, frankly I actually would like to destroy the remnants of them because I loathe their existence by this point. They don't contribute much in the grand-scheme of things, we have magic users and technicians from charr and asuran respectively. We have warriors from charr and norn, whom would lore wise make more sense to be better fighters than the humans on sheer size and the fact they live harsher lives.

    Just because your favorite race FOR ONCE is not the focus, doesn't mean you get to bash on the others. This is a norn and charr story at least until the saga concludes, enjoy it or move on until its done. I skipped most of PoF and only logged in to get the episodes; I played it later on to get to a point where I understood what was going on but Im so done with human centric kitten that I can't be bothered to care. (Because its literally just the same old stuff with them.)

  • ThatOddOne.4387ThatOddOne.4387 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @ThatOddOne.4387 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Sylum.1806 said:

    @witcher.3197 said:

    @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.

    1. You keep repeating ArenaNet is spitting on GW1 and "Ascalon" (I'm assuming you're referring to Ascalonian Humans and the Human kingdom of Ascalon, and not the land of Ascalon) but you forget that you can only play as Humans in GW1. Of course the POV is gonna be pro-human and anti-Charr.
    2. Characters not being able to have their own distinct POV is bad writing. Which you only seem to begrudgingly acknowledge in your later responses after more reasonable people pointed out how ridiculously narrow-minded and personal your original post was.
    3. The real evil of war is that all sides are convinced they are on the right side. Everyone thinks they are the protagonist of the story. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's complicated. A good story-teller is supposed to show that, not tell it to you point-blank. You are having dissonance because you are confusing the subjective POV of the Ascalonians from GW1 and the Charr from GW2 as the objective POV of ArenaNet and that is pretty blinkered. To then blame them for having a personal agenda when they are depicting how two sides see the same conflict differently in a very realistic manner (not so different from our real-world tribal conflicts) when YOU are the one taking this personally is beyond ridiculous.

    To go along with the last bit said here the humans ARE the evil, They and their gods are 100% the cause of almost all the major conflicts and turmoil on tyria. They committed GENOCIDE pf the "Lesser" races for not being like them, and have led conquest after conquest. We only saw their narrative In GW1 but in the further lore, the story goes that when they came here they followed balthazar (A psychopath) to conquer the world. The humans are JUST as xenophobic as the charr are, and frankly I feel the charr are one of the few who have the rite to be. They've been hunted and when they fought back, they found the humans had gods on their side ones who ONLY cared about the well being of the humans. I don't believe balthazar ever changed but that we saw him differently because for the first time, our views and purpose did not align with his.

    Im a norn player because of what they were in guild wars 1, the humans not being favorites here? Really. They've been center stage the entire game and litterally have had so many redemption arcs within this story alone. They are becoming fast friends with iron, ash and to some extent blood legion and we even have blood brothers forming from soliders who fight together (See logan and Rytlock.) Looking at the larger narrative the charr are basically a lot like the humans, both worshiped powers beyond them and both got scorned. The charr chose to industrialize and focus on weapons of war, they chose to grow while humans still cling to the Six whom of which are some of the most evil beings in the setting. The tales of them do not speak of fond happy times, they speak of how cruel they could and would be and how the humans were merely their "Play-things".

    Lyssa came and convinced men to fight only to die~ Rather then aid them, or even warn them.
    Balthazar willingly consumed the souls of his fallen, and tormented those he deemed "Cowardly".
    Melandru killed a mans son, for killing a creature that had harmed him and then left him for dead.
    Dwayana DROVE PEOPLE MAD, by her shear appearance and presence.
    Abbadon held secrets, and Kormir continued in his legacy as well denied us any help regardless of if we needed it.

    Grenth is the only one to show compassion and even mercy out of all of them, though even then he still claimed the life of a woman who murdered her abusive lech of a husband for all he had done to her and her children. So looking at the humans religion, their way of life and the ideas they come from and how they believe they are superior to ALL the other races INCLUDING the norn/charr/asura/sylvari I would say the charr were the victims. But due to their primal nature they retaliated and decided to wage war; The norn and asuran we hadn't met yet and the sylvari had yet to be born. Im sure that had the humans met the norn prior to the events that transpired when they got here the outcome would be much the same. But I believe the norn would of killed them all because the spirits in my eyes are stronger than the gods, the spirits fought jormag when the gods wouldn't even try. Kormir even stated that the dragons were STRONGER than the six which is why they wouldn't fight, because should one of them fall the outcome would be catastrophic.

    The story isn't about who was the victim though, or who was the winner. The story is about two groups of people and two differing species setting aside their differences and coming to realize they aren't that different. The story is a redemption for both of them and a new chapter for them, one well executed and one that has been going since we met Pyre for the first time in Eye of the north. If you still can't see that neither side was the villain fully and neither side won much of anything, rather they lost tons of lives and even almost collapsed as civilizations you are either willfully ignorant to the purpose of the tale or choose to pick a side on the opposite end of a line no one drew in the first place.

    Actually... No.

    The humans have not genocided "lesser races", give examples, don't just say it. On the other hand we know the charr HAVE during their time on Tyria.

    Balthazar was not a psychopath, you're wrong, and he did change. We know this for a fact, that you deny it doesn't make it true.

    The parables of the Gods you are referring to are just that, parables, and hardly proof that the Gods are bad and can be interpreted in benevolent ways, if they even happened.

    • Lyssa inspired those soldiers to fight regardless, that they died is irrelevant, she did not personally kill them, but she gave them the courage to fight and their contribution to the battle could have made the difference, but we don't know, and she certainly didn't have a hand in making sure each and every one of those soldiers die.
    • Balthazar consumed the soul of a singular coward so that cowardice could not further harm others, he took the coward's shame as his own.
    • Melandru did not kill anyone. There is no implication that she did. She was simply saying in that parable that animals killing humans and humans killing animals is the way of nature. That is not malicious and there's no implication she personally made sure the guy's family got eaten by wolves.
    • Same for Dwayna. She did not intentionally blind people, she did not intentionally make sure that a tree fell on a guys house after he denied someone refuge from a storm.
    • Secrets are not automatically bad, that's by far the most ridiculous of your statements.
    • The wife in question still committed murder.

    So... No, everything you said was wrong. (Including Dragons being stronger than the Gods). The charr are not victims, and whilst I disagree with the OP's tone, he has a point.

    It's all very well going on about the "Charr PoV" but the problem is that PoV has next to no redeeming qualities, even when it was touched on in the so-called human-centric GW1. The charr didn't rebel because they felt bad about what happened to the humans, they liked what happened to the humans, they rebelled against other charr because they were being controlled and tricked. This still doesn't make them the victims, because they still ultimately approved of the Searing and all the humans who died as a result of their war. (And continued to prosecute it even after they overthrew the Flame Legion, which should tell you all you need to know)

    And not a single charr character has ever shown regret for what happened, whilst you see plenty of humans regretting the actions of their own race - Including, again, in the so-called human-centric GW1 (Rurik and Adelbern), where whilst the main characters and only playable race were humans, it still showcased just how bad humans can be.

    Quite a few of the storylines in GW1 are about humans helping other races, as well, namely asura, dwarves and norn (AND EVEN CHARR), so I don't really see how the accusation that only a human PoV was espoused in GW1 holds water. Did the humans make war on the dwarves and norn? No they didn't. Did the charr? Yes, they did. There are significant differences in the characters of these two races and how they act towards the world they inhabit that people are willfully ignoring in favour of this charr apologist stance because they cannot possibly fathom the mighty, unbeatable charr having lost to the evil invading humans at one point in history.

    People can gurn and moan about how the humans displaced the charr and centaur but I'm pretty sure the dwarves preferred to have the humans as neighbours over the charr, and I'm sure sylvari and asura in modern Tyria prefer to have humans as their closest other neighbours over vast tracts of lands owned by marauding, vicious centaurs. So there's some perspective for you.

    King adelbern was Xenophobic, the canthans were xenophobic and as it turns out even the citizens of divinities reach share xenophobia. The charr do as well so literally they are the same in that respect and to say otherwise is ignorance. Kind Adelbern wanted no one but humans to live and keep ascalon, the Vizer sunk his ENTIRE nation and killed off its people in a "Im taking my ball and going home" moment.

    Humans helping other races? Yes when it suited them, which is a parallel of how our species works in the real world. Most people don't do good unless they directly bennefit; The norn got help from the humans because the humans needed the norn. The dwarves only got help because they were needed durring prophecies and the stone summit were an enemy to both. In eye of the north the only reason the dwarves got involved was for the sake of killing their long time enemy the destroyers, The humans are NOT the victims of anything but their own hubris.

    The gods a parallel to greek gods, they are neither good or evil but are whimsical. The ONLY RACE they care about are the humans, so when and if tyria goes to explode I promise the humans will be whisked away by their gods but the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves. They are generic fantasy drivel, frankly I actually would like to destroy the remnants of them because I loathe their existence by this point. They don't contribute much in the grand-scheme of things, we have magic users and technicians from charr and asuran respectively. We have warriors from charr and norn, whom would lore wise make more sense to be better fighters than the humans on sheer size and the fact they live harsher lives.

    Just because your favorite race FOR ONCE is not the focus, doesn't mean you get to bash on the others. This is a norn and charr story at least until the saga concludes, enjoy it or move on until its done. I skipped most of PoF and only logged in to get the episodes; I played it later on to get to a point where I understood what was going on but Im so done with human centric kitten that I can't be bothered to care. (Because its literally just the same old stuff with them.)

    So you’re just petty and narrowminded, right.

    For the record even a cursory glance of this forum will tell you that I like that charr and norn are getting some attention, I just don’t buy into the narrative that the charr are sympathetic at all.

    Just pray ArenaNet don’t treat the norn spirits of the wild like they did the human gods, which is a very real concern I have.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    Candidly Thornwolf, the way you describe things just seems like Witcher but in the opposite direction, and also with less basis in lore. King Adelbern was Xenophobic and the Canthans were Xenophobic certainly, but to say the entire nation of the Charr being Xenophobic and culturally built from the ground up be Xenophobic is comparable to either example is disingenuous at best. There a Hereditary Dynasty that masquerades as a Meirtocracy with a heavy emphasis on Charr exceptionalism and millitary conquest, to say that is the same as a human absolute monarchy with bits of Oligarchy incorporated in it is apples and oranges.

    Saying 'humans only do good things when it suits them' in either fiction OR real life is nonsensical, the fabrication of Nihilists who have trouble grasping the concept of altruism even exists because from their viewpoint their modern world and all of history is just a reductive series of power plays where empathy does not exist. Humans in Tyria deeply value compassion, honor, and valor with many devoting their entire lives to the betterment of other people. While that isn't impossible in Charr culture, their values certainly emphasize that those are not traits to be favored. Humans have a culture of vulnerability, Charr have a culture of strength.

    Also your whole assertion about the gods only caring about humanity is instantly disproven by the mere existence of Melandru, due to being, you know, the whole primordial concept of nature thing. Even in the parable YOU BROUGHT UP she cares about a fox as much as a farmer, because thus is the way of nature. Just because you feel humans are over represented doesn't mean we're going to write ourselves out of the icebrood Saga or comment on the failings it reveals in Charr society, much as Charr did with PoF, turnabout is fair play.

  • ThatOddOne.4387ThatOddOne.4387 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    Even the assertion that PoF was human focused because it involved Balthazar and was based in Elona is nonsensical and I don’t understand why ArenaNet said that. It was Aurene-focused, everything else including the human gods was badly represented window dressing and does not constitute “human focus”.

    Hell, the last stages of the story didn’t even involve Elona or Elonians in any special or notable role at all.

    Or it could be presented as human focused if one admits that this focus constitutes breaking down the core features of said race and having the narrative essentially go to them “lol your religion is stupid”.

    If PoF was human-focused, then it was not good focus at all.

  • ugrakarma.9416ugrakarma.9416 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @Loesh.4697 said:
    I actually disagree with this entirely just based on how the NPCs seem to talk, they all seem very modern, fairly modern in Guild Wars 1 even. That's something that isn't even true of the Charr themselves who are argue a right over Ascalon due to it's being their ancestral land. I think that in and of itself is in part why people are so critical of them, even by their own records they aren't the original owners but they like to pretend as such which makes them fit in much more closely with more modern societies as conquerors. Sure the idea's these nations were based on were old, but the actual ideas they expouse are not, with for example the Charr basically undergoing a female civil rights movement or transgender people being accepted in Lions Arch.

    Both of those definitely weren't common for the time periods the setting draws upon, but hardly anyone blinks at them. To me Guild Wars was, if anything, deliberately forcing an anachronism to make us examine old cultures with modern eyes.

    like i said anacronism is unaivodable, In fact, in most novels, touches to show some cultural difference "because this is another time and place" are actually the minor part, they are few points selected just to emphasize that "these people are rised in a different way than us", and also to hide that in reality the novel is just the modern stuff with another "avatar".

    I guess GW2 writers are very well aware of this all sort of details, look at how the Joko world was presented, they detailed stuff to shows how a very crazy dictatorship can be accepted as "normal daily stuff" by all sort of tricks and social manipulation.

    "It's a testament to the folly of the humans and their gods. They say Arah was sacred, but all I see is one big dragon nest."(Rytlock Brimstone)

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

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    as it turns out even the citizens of divinities reach share xenophobia.

    Not moreso than other races, really. There's a lot of hostililty to charr and centaurs specifically, but they're currently at war with centaurs, and the adults making those comments have spent most of their lives at war with charr in a conflict that not only spanned centuries, but which resulted in the complete destruction of one civilization, the almost complete destruction of another, and that indirectly caused most of the political troubles of the surviving kingdom. It's true that humans themselves caused a lot of their own problems, but only as a result of the assult. The charr currently represent a very real and existential threat to the survival of humanity in Tyria (the continent).

    The gods a parallel to greek gods, they are neither good or evil but are whimsical. The ONLY RACE they care about are the humans, so when and if tyria goes to explode I promise the humans will be whisked away by their gods but the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves

    That isn't true, either. They do have a special relationship with humans, but they also have followers in other races, especially the forgotten (and probably the quaggans, by another name). It was prevalent in GW1, but they dialed it back in GW2 mainly to let each playable race have its own religion-equivalent.

  • Stramatus.5219Stramatus.5219 Member ✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    I can't speak specifically to the new patch as I largely quit playing after PoF. I apparently have some catching up to do.

    I feel that the idea of "Charr victimization" was absolutely somewhat prevalent at the time of GW2 release back in 2012. I feel that part of the game design to create multiple playable races that allied with each other, including the Charr was to tone down the idea of their established nature as a race in lore and throughout GW1. What was a villainous race, hellbent on war and genocide of the humans (and other races before them) became instead a narrative of "retaking a homeland". Which in and of itself was wrong on a lore standing, but was nonetheless peddled relentlessly following the release of GW2 by players seemingly unfamiliar with the lore, or had never played GW1. Nevermind the fact that the Charr also marched on Orr and Kryta to presumably perform the same Searing upon those kingdoms as well. Am I to believe those are Charr homelands too?

    Meanwhile, the remaining Ascalonians were diminished in stature within lore due to the Foefire which nobody within lore or the community would likely view in a positive light. Yet I'm sure the Charr feel the Searing was completely justified. And suddenly the narrative is the mad evil king (which he was towards the end) cursing his people and the land and the Ascalonians are largely reduced to being killable mad ghosts intent on killing everyone and everything. The exceptions of course being Ebonhawke and the Ascalon Settlement in Kryta.

    As a more role-player type, the vibe I got from the game, the community, my guild at the time even was basically a big "eff me for being an Ascalonian", and "The Searing is ancient history, get over it."

    And I would have been willing to do so, but up till now (presumably), the game did not at all do a good job of portraying these geopolitical relationships between the races and especially the Humans and Charr. A cease-fire and peace-treaty is signed, but throughout the Personal Story, you would think everyone is best of buds, not "we just barely signed this treaty". I realize that's probably a limitation of game design and how much you can possibly branch a multi-racial playable story-line, but I will say the Charr of GW2 feel completely different from the Charr of GW1 to me, and Ascalonians got the short end of the stick between The Searing, invasion, a king who goes crazy, refuses help, and ultimately curses them, and then a narrative that reduces the Ascalonians to little more than fodder for those who don't know their lore. And the dialogue I say, or feelings I have as a player interested in somewhat roleplaying my main human character of Ascalonian ancestry (which is a selectable option in the Dead Sister personal story branch by the way...) never matched how I feel my character would really react. I think that character would be very distrusting of the Charr, not best of buds with them.

    "Remember The Searing."

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @Loesh.4697 said:
    I think my primary issue with that Konig is how Pyre Fierceshot and his Warband frame the event as well as how they considered humans around them. They weren't a terribly empathetic group of people to say the least, one of them confusing the Ascendants for Pyres slaves at first and generally just despising humanity above and beyond even how humans viewed them in turn. Pyre spoke of the Searing with pride, and it's little wonder since Vatlaaw Doomtooh was his father and a scout who had a hand in making the Searing possible. Now i'm unsure how much Charr actually know about Bonfaaz Burntfur, his history could be heavily embellished for all I know to remove the bit about the Searing, but he is idolized and few Charr that i'v seen express any kind of remorse or fault over the event in either game.

    Leads me to believe that while yes, the Shaman Caste was deceiving the Charr about the nature of their gods, the Charr were more angry about that then anything they visited upon anyone else.

    Probably true, but keep in mind that this was in war, and the Searing, while devastating, did not bring about extinction. It could be fairly easily be seen as a major war victory, as opposed to being a cataclysmic event. After all, the plantlife of Ascalon has regrown since then, and Ascalon remained a threat for twenty more years before all that was left was just Ebonhawke.

    As opposed to the Cataclysm or Jade Wind, which destroyed not just the structures and caused a lot of death, but also destroyed the land itself. Or the Foefire, which damned the people's souls. Both the Cataclysm and Foefire are viewed as "cowardly acts" (though the former was also viewed with respect since it "shows the ferocity of charr" so to speak).

    Points being, you cannot just equate every massive magical act as the same thing, nor can you proclaim an entire people were in on any one of them.

    @Ra Ra.9423 said:
    It's my headcannon from reading the Tyrian timeline and lore, that CoF was built by the Ascalonians (probably also during the time they were building the Great Northern Wall, in a 900 year period), given that the ghosts that are fighting the charr (and you) are human: Murakai, her Steward. The Master, and others. After taking Ascalon from the Charr, they built the complex to store their treasures, then when the Charr recovered that land, they killed all within, and are faced with outraged ghosts. The Master Dungeon guide has only this to say about Cof:

    • _Once freed, Pyre's warband sacked the cathedral, looking for anything of value. In their search, they unearthed a blocked passage. Clearing the debris revealed a stash of treasure plundered from Ascalonian ruins... but there was more. The **spirits of those slain for these spoils of war **had attached themselves to the treasure, haunting the vaults. Worse yet, a powerful Necromancer named Murakai dwelt among them. She used the creatures' unliving essence to create a storm of souls, which she planned to unleash upon human and Charr alike. It fell to us to lay these disembodied spirits to rest and to suspend Murakai's wrath, if only for a time. _

    The ghosts 100% came with the spoils from Ascalon, and were not originally at the Cathedral of Flames. If you looked at other dialogue, you'd get:

    "Pyre ordered Fierceblade and I to search the temple for anything of value. We discovered a blocked passage...blocked for a reason, as it turned out. Burntsoul and his band had a pretty pile of Ascalonian treasure down there, sacked from the ruins. You'd think being suddenly rich would solve all my problems, mouse, but the issue is...the spirits attached to the treasure haunt these vaults. Seems one called Murakai is creating a storm of souls to unleash on you mice and the Charr alike.
    [...] We tried to "liberate" the spirits with steel, but they keep coming back to the relics. [...]

    https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Temple_of_the_Damned

    Murakai was a Necromancer who fought the Charr in Ascalon, but now her spirits rage in the passages below. [...]

    https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Lars_Bridgeater

    And as you quoted:

    The spirits of those slain for these spoils of war had attached themselves to the treasure, haunting the vaults.

    Basically, the charr ransacked Ascalon, killed people to take treasure, the souls of those slain attached to the treasure, treasure was taken to Cathedral of Flames' vaults, and now Cathedral of Flames is haunted.

    And it should be noted that the treasures and spoils of war include Diessa Chalices, Golden Rin Relics, which come are central-western Ascalonian areas, and Exquisite Surmia Carving which is from eastern Ascalon.

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

  • @ThatOddOne.4387 said:
    Even the assertion that PoF was human focused because it involved Balthazar and was based in Elona is nonsensical and I don’t understand why ArenaNet said that. It was Aurene-focused, everything else including the human gods was badly represented window dressing and does not constitute “human focus”.

    Hell, the last stages of the story didn’t even involve Elona or Elonians in any special or notable role at all.

    Or it could be presented as human focused if one admits that this focus constitutes breaking down the core features of said race and having the narrative essentially go to them “lol your religion is stupid”.

    If PoF was human-focused, then it was not good focus at all.

    Path of Fire deals a lot with "Faith", a concept that is human focused in itself.

    You may not have liked the direction ArenaNet took with it, but it is a testament of the human-centric nature of that expansion.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThatOddOne.4387 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @ThatOddOne.4387 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Sylum.1806 said:

    @witcher.3197 said:

    @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.

    1. You keep repeating ArenaNet is spitting on GW1 and "Ascalon" (I'm assuming you're referring to Ascalonian Humans and the Human kingdom of Ascalon, and not the land of Ascalon) but you forget that you can only play as Humans in GW1. Of course the POV is gonna be pro-human and anti-Charr.
    2. Characters not being able to have their own distinct POV is bad writing. Which you only seem to begrudgingly acknowledge in your later responses after more reasonable people pointed out how ridiculously narrow-minded and personal your original post was.
    3. The real evil of war is that all sides are convinced they are on the right side. Everyone thinks they are the protagonist of the story. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's complicated. A good story-teller is supposed to show that, not tell it to you point-blank. You are having dissonance because you are confusing the subjective POV of the Ascalonians from GW1 and the Charr from GW2 as the objective POV of ArenaNet and that is pretty blinkered. To then blame them for having a personal agenda when they are depicting how two sides see the same conflict differently in a very realistic manner (not so different from our real-world tribal conflicts) when YOU are the one taking this personally is beyond ridiculous.

    To go along with the last bit said here the humans ARE the evil, They and their gods are 100% the cause of almost all the major conflicts and turmoil on tyria. They committed GENOCIDE pf the "Lesser" races for not being like them, and have led conquest after conquest. We only saw their narrative In GW1 but in the further lore, the story goes that when they came here they followed balthazar (A psychopath) to conquer the world. The humans are JUST as xenophobic as the charr are, and frankly I feel the charr are one of the few who have the rite to be. They've been hunted and when they fought back, they found the humans had gods on their side ones who ONLY cared about the well being of the humans. I don't believe balthazar ever changed but that we saw him differently because for the first time, our views and purpose did not align with his.

    Im a norn player because of what they were in guild wars 1, the humans not being favorites here? Really. They've been center stage the entire game and litterally have had so many redemption arcs within this story alone. They are becoming fast friends with iron, ash and to some extent blood legion and we even have blood brothers forming from soliders who fight together (See logan and Rytlock.) Looking at the larger narrative the charr are basically a lot like the humans, both worshiped powers beyond them and both got scorned. The charr chose to industrialize and focus on weapons of war, they chose to grow while humans still cling to the Six whom of which are some of the most evil beings in the setting. The tales of them do not speak of fond happy times, they speak of how cruel they could and would be and how the humans were merely their "Play-things".

    Lyssa came and convinced men to fight only to die~ Rather then aid them, or even warn them.
    Balthazar willingly consumed the souls of his fallen, and tormented those he deemed "Cowardly".
    Melandru killed a mans son, for killing a creature that had harmed him and then left him for dead.
    Dwayana DROVE PEOPLE MAD, by her shear appearance and presence.
    Abbadon held secrets, and Kormir continued in his legacy as well denied us any help regardless of if we needed it.

    Grenth is the only one to show compassion and even mercy out of all of them, though even then he still claimed the life of a woman who murdered her abusive lech of a husband for all he had done to her and her children. So looking at the humans religion, their way of life and the ideas they come from and how they believe they are superior to ALL the other races INCLUDING the norn/charr/asura/sylvari I would say the charr were the victims. But due to their primal nature they retaliated and decided to wage war; The norn and asuran we hadn't met yet and the sylvari had yet to be born. Im sure that had the humans met the norn prior to the events that transpired when they got here the outcome would be much the same. But I believe the norn would of killed them all because the spirits in my eyes are stronger than the gods, the spirits fought jormag when the gods wouldn't even try. Kormir even stated that the dragons were STRONGER than the six which is why they wouldn't fight, because should one of them fall the outcome would be catastrophic.

    The story isn't about who was the victim though, or who was the winner. The story is about two groups of people and two differing species setting aside their differences and coming to realize they aren't that different. The story is a redemption for both of them and a new chapter for them, one well executed and one that has been going since we met Pyre for the first time in Eye of the north. If you still can't see that neither side was the villain fully and neither side won much of anything, rather they lost tons of lives and even almost collapsed as civilizations you are either willfully ignorant to the purpose of the tale or choose to pick a side on the opposite end of a line no one drew in the first place.

    Actually... No.

    The humans have not genocided "lesser races", give examples, don't just say it. On the other hand we know the charr HAVE during their time on Tyria.

    Balthazar was not a psychopath, you're wrong, and he did change. We know this for a fact, that you deny it doesn't make it true.

    The parables of the Gods you are referring to are just that, parables, and hardly proof that the Gods are bad and can be interpreted in benevolent ways, if they even happened.

    • Lyssa inspired those soldiers to fight regardless, that they died is irrelevant, she did not personally kill them, but she gave them the courage to fight and their contribution to the battle could have made the difference, but we don't know, and she certainly didn't have a hand in making sure each and every one of those soldiers die.
    • Balthazar consumed the soul of a singular coward so that cowardice could not further harm others, he took the coward's shame as his own.
    • Melandru did not kill anyone. There is no implication that she did. She was simply saying in that parable that animals killing humans and humans killing animals is the way of nature. That is not malicious and there's no implication she personally made sure the guy's family got eaten by wolves.
    • Same for Dwayna. She did not intentionally blind people, she did not intentionally make sure that a tree fell on a guys house after he denied someone refuge from a storm.
    • Secrets are not automatically bad, that's by far the most ridiculous of your statements.
    • The wife in question still committed murder.

    So... No, everything you said was wrong. (Including Dragons being stronger than the Gods). The charr are not victims, and whilst I disagree with the OP's tone, he has a point.

    It's all very well going on about the "Charr PoV" but the problem is that PoV has next to no redeeming qualities, even when it was touched on in the so-called human-centric GW1. The charr didn't rebel because they felt bad about what happened to the humans, they liked what happened to the humans, they rebelled against other charr because they were being controlled and tricked. This still doesn't make them the victims, because they still ultimately approved of the Searing and all the humans who died as a result of their war. (And continued to prosecute it even after they overthrew the Flame Legion, which should tell you all you need to know)

    And not a single charr character has ever shown regret for what happened, whilst you see plenty of humans regretting the actions of their own race - Including, again, in the so-called human-centric GW1 (Rurik and Adelbern), where whilst the main characters and only playable race were humans, it still showcased just how bad humans can be.

    Quite a few of the storylines in GW1 are about humans helping other races, as well, namely asura, dwarves and norn (AND EVEN CHARR), so I don't really see how the accusation that only a human PoV was espoused in GW1 holds water. Did the humans make war on the dwarves and norn? No they didn't. Did the charr? Yes, they did. There are significant differences in the characters of these two races and how they act towards the world they inhabit that people are willfully ignoring in favour of this charr apologist stance because they cannot possibly fathom the mighty, unbeatable charr having lost to the evil invading humans at one point in history.

    People can gurn and moan about how the humans displaced the charr and centaur but I'm pretty sure the dwarves preferred to have the humans as neighbours over the charr, and I'm sure sylvari and asura in modern Tyria prefer to have humans as their closest other neighbours over vast tracts of lands owned by marauding, vicious centaurs. So there's some perspective for you.

    King adelbern was Xenophobic, the canthans were xenophobic and as it turns out even the citizens of divinities reach share xenophobia. The charr do as well so literally they are the same in that respect and to say otherwise is ignorance. Kind Adelbern wanted no one but humans to live and keep ascalon, the Vizer sunk his ENTIRE nation and killed off its people in a "Im taking my ball and going home" moment.

    Humans helping other races? Yes when it suited them, which is a parallel of how our species works in the real world. Most people don't do good unless they directly bennefit; The norn got help from the humans because the humans needed the norn. The dwarves only got help because they were needed durring prophecies and the stone summit were an enemy to both. In eye of the north the only reason the dwarves got involved was for the sake of killing their long time enemy the destroyers, The humans are NOT the victims of anything but their own hubris.

    The gods a parallel to greek gods, they are neither good or evil but are whimsical. The ONLY RACE they care about are the humans, so when and if tyria goes to explode I promise the humans will be whisked away by their gods but the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves. They are generic fantasy drivel, frankly I actually would like to destroy the remnants of them because I loathe their existence by this point. They don't contribute much in the grand-scheme of things, we have magic users and technicians from charr and asuran respectively. We have warriors from charr and norn, whom would lore wise make more sense to be better fighters than the humans on sheer size and the fact they live harsher lives.

    Just because your favorite race FOR ONCE is not the focus, doesn't mean you get to bash on the others. This is a norn and charr story at least until the saga concludes, enjoy it or move on until its done. I skipped most of PoF and only logged in to get the episodes; I played it later on to get to a point where I understood what was going on but Im so done with human centric kitten that I can't be bothered to care. (Because its literally just the same old stuff with them.)

    So you’re just petty and narrowminded, right.

    For the record even a cursory glance of this forum will tell you that I like that charr and norn are getting some attention, I just don’t buy into the narrative that the charr are sympathetic at all.

    Just pray ArenaNet don’t treat the norn spirits of the wild like they did the human gods, which is a very real concern I have.

    Im not narrowminded I just realize both sides have their villains, notice how pyre Had no issue abandoning their "Gods" and working with humans nor did his warband. I mean we all have our demons right? Is it so hard to believe that they have come that far, and only Bangar remains as one of those "Few" who dislike the idea of peace. Im pretty sure he is just a warmongering "Hero" of his own story sort of character. And Im pretty sure a good amount of the charr with him are under this delusional view as well. We still have humans who are racist against the other races in ambient dialogue so like the real world I doubt it will ever FULLY dissipate at least between the charr and humans but a lot of them seem to be growing on one another. Almora even went in and CHALLENGED bangar over what happened to one of her human soldiers, Im pretty sure she would of have killed him had his true intentions been known right there. (You don't kitten with Soulreaver.)

    As for the norn Im already mad, The spirits are becoming a mastery FOR EVERYONE!? Why. Oh because we can't let anyone one race have anything cool, but the norn get the hardest shaft in this game. They've been pretty worthless up to this point and haven't really contributed to the narrative at all, we Lost Eir because "The plot demanded it" when it should of been Zojja or One of the others as I feel her tale had not yet been fully realized. We have braham who is not norn in the slightest, he whines and acts so human its sad. To top that off armor for male norn are hard to come by that look like something they would wear, or even to make it look good because for some reason their model dislikes everything (No clue why.) So they are stripping us of our unique qualities to give it to everyone else, and the sad part is we won't get any compensation for it. We can't shapeshift because those skills are utter trash and you'd be foolish to use them, We can't have it as a passive cosmetic thing where our racial armor will stay otherwise we just go full naked because that would make us too cool. We can't have norn themed stuff and even those this saga is supposed to be about them, I have a strong feeling they will take a backseat to the charr (The real focus of this saga.)

    Feels like they hate the norn, their lore and everything tied to them sometimes. Im pretty sure the spirits of the wild will either be killed off completely this saga leaving the norn without them, because we can't have a higher power or beings beyond us being directly involved. OR they will explain the norn really don't know squat and are just big dumb humans like the majority of the playerbase thinks they are. They need more than just narrative depth at this point, they need a face-lift and to be brought more in line with the norn WE ORIGINALLY ENCOUNTERED. They should be imposing but not violent by nature, willing to fight but spiritual in their outlook on life rather than just being "My legend" and the "They are big drunk people". I wan't to be like Olaf seventh son of Olaf or Jora. I want to become the bear and be blessed, I want to be the shamanic viking/celtic native american hybrid they were showcased to be. Im hoping this saga will give them that, and they will get more customization... but the doubt and the worry that its just gonna be more of the same lingers. So I feel you there....> @perilisk.1874 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    as it turns out even the citizens of divinities reach share xenophobia.

    Not moreso than other races, really. There's a lot of hostililty to charr and centaurs specifically, but they're currently at war with centaurs, and the adults making those comments have spent most of their lives at war with charr in a conflict that not only spanned centuries, but which resulted in the complete destruction of one civilization, the almost complete destruction of another, and that indirectly caused most of the political troubles of the surviving kingdom. It's true that humans themselves caused a lot of their own problems, but only as a result of the assult. The charr currently represent a very real and existential threat to the survival of humanity in Tyria (the continent).

    The gods a parallel to greek gods, they are neither good or evil but are whimsical. The ONLY RACE they care about are the humans, so when and if tyria goes to explode I promise the humans will be whisked away by their gods but the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves

    That isn't true, either. They do have a special relationship with humans, but they also have followers in other races, especially the forgotten (and probably the quaggans, by another name). It was prevalent in GW1, but they dialed it back in GW2 mainly to let each playable race have its own religion-equivalent.

    I never meant that all the humans are Xenophobic I should of worded it better, but there is still that racism there and the victimization of the human race is also prevalent in the base campaign and the ambient dialogue. It just goes to show both feel like victims and the older denizens of the cultures refuse to let go where as the younger generation are a bit more open minded.

    I highly doubt the norn or charr would get help from the six, I also highly doubt either would want it.

  • @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    As for the norn Im already mad, The spirits are becoming a mastery FOR EVERYONE!? Why.

    Human characters in Guild Wars Eye of the North had the possibility to be blessed by the Spirits of the Wild.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gorgaan Peaudesang.8324 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    As for the norn Im already mad, The spirits are becoming a mastery FOR EVERYONE!? Why.

    Human characters in Guild Wars Eye of the North had the possibility to be blessed by the Spirits of the Wild.

    Still I don't feel its right considering how shafted the norn are, and have been. Why should I share one of the few things that heck only in lore really maters to my race? The humans don't share the six as masteries, the charr don't share their ranks as masteries. The asurans don't share their stuff nor do the Sylvari... Heck the sylvari had a WHOLE expansion with flair and depth poured onto them. Don't feel its really fair in the long run, but I know it doesn't matter either....

  • @Stramatus.5219 said:
    I can't speak specifically to the new patch as I largely quit playing after PoF. I apparently have some catching up to do.

    I feel that the idea of "Charr victimization" was absolutely somewhat prevalent at the time of GW2 release back in 2012. I feel that part of the game design to create multiple playable races that allied with each other, including the Charr was to tone down the idea of their established nature as a race in lore and throughout GW1. What was a villainous race, hellbent on war and genocide of the humans (and other races before them) became instead a narrative of "retaking a homeland". Which in and of itself was wrong on a lore standing, but was nonetheless peddled relentlessly following the release of GW2 by players seemingly unfamiliar with the lore, or had never played GW1. Nevermind the fact that the Charr also marched on Orr and Kryta to presumably perform the same Searing upon those kingdoms as well. Am I to believe those are Charr homelands too?

    Meanwhile, the remaining Ascalonians were diminished in stature within lore due to the Foefire which nobody within lore or the community would likely view in a positive light. Yet I'm sure the Charr feel the Searing was completely justified. And suddenly the narrative is the mad evil king (which he was towards the end) cursing his people and the land and the Ascalonians are largely reduced to being killable mad ghosts intent on killing everyone and everything. The exceptions of course being Ebonhawke and the Ascalon Settlement in Kryta.

    As a more role-player type, the vibe I got from the game, the community, my guild at the time even was basically a big "eff me for being an Ascalonian", and "The Searing is ancient history, get over it."

    And I would have been willing to do so, but up till now (presumably), the game did not at all do a good job of portraying these geopolitical relationships between the races and especially the Humans and Charr. A cease-fire and peace-treaty is signed, but throughout the Personal Story, you would think everyone is best of buds, not "we just barely signed this treaty". I realize that's probably a limitation of game design and how much you can possibly branch a multi-racial playable story-line, but I will say the Charr of GW2 feel completely different from the Charr of GW1 to me, and Ascalonians got the short end of the stick between The Searing, invasion, a king who goes crazy, refuses help, and ultimately curses them, and then a narrative that reduces the Ascalonians to little more than fodder for those who don't know their lore. And the dialogue I say, or feelings I have as a player interested in somewhat roleplaying my main human character of Ascalonian ancestry (which is a selectable option in the Dead Sister personal story branch by the way...) never matched how I feel my character would really react. I think that character would be very distrusting of the Charr, not best of buds with them.

    Are you actually just mad that Anet made a race 3-dimensional instead of just "kill everything and everyone"? I didn't finish GW1 but I sure as hell played it, even got through a decent chunk of EotN before life got busy and the game's mechanics got too tiring to deal with. Not to mention, marching on Orr and Kryta could be entirely written as "you took our land, we take yours". It's entirely believable for a race that in GW2, is presented as harsh and militarily focused, this all just reads like you're stuck in the past because of your roleplay. And the only way the Forefire would work in the first place is if Adelbern was absolutely deranged (because what sane king would condemn his people to live through eternity as wandering, angry spirits?), and narratively speaking it's either have the Ascalonians eternally stuck as ghosts, or have them all be wiped out because the Charr had vastly superior firepower in comparison with the exception of Ebonhawke, or you pull something out your butt that lets the humans kill the Charr entirely which is just asking for actual bad writing imo. At least this way you still get to see Ascalonians in the game, even as enemies. And miss me with the "established lore" angle, there was effectively no lore about the Charr in GW2 other than they were big bad evil monsters who wanted to kill everything.

    Yes, the treaty between Ascalon/Kryta and the Charr was recently signed (at launch) but you have NPC's like Logan and Rytlock who knew each other beforehand, or places like Lion's Arch where these racial tensions basically didn't exist, or in the various Orders where all the races had worked to move past such things well before GW2 launched. There's still plenty of Charr-human racism in GW2, hell there's an NPC in the Maiden's Whisper whose repeating line involves her insinuating she'll kill any Charr that comes near her with a meat cleaver (which is laughable in and of itself but that's another tangent). There's tension. But it's not prevalent in the story, because it'd be a nightmare to write out. It also helps that the story entirely revolves around killing big threats that no single race can handle on its own, and there's nothing that brings people together like a common enemy, this is a well established fact.

    BTW, the Searing is effectively ancient history by now. It happened over 250 years ago, your character's great-great grandparents wouldn't even remember it, and Charr characters currently alive would have had no hand in what their great-great-great-great-great-great grandsires did. It's entirely understandable that, unless your character was actually alive and living as a non-infant in Ebonhawke by the time the ceasefire happened, to tell you to drop the racist angle in-character.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Gorgaan Peaudesang.8324 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    As for the norn Im already mad, The spirits are becoming a mastery FOR EVERYONE!? Why.

    Human characters in Guild Wars Eye of the North had the possibility to be blessed by the Spirits of the Wild.

    Still I don't feel its right considering how shafted the norn are, and have been. Why should I share one of the few things that heck only in lore really maters to my race? The humans don't share the six as masteries, the charr don't share their ranks as masteries. The asurans don't share their stuff nor do the Sylvari... Heck the sylvari had a WHOLE expansion with flair and depth poured onto them. Don't feel its really fair in the long run, but I know it doesn't matter either....

    You do realize that you can literally learn the magical dirges of the Five as any race and with the proper artifacts anyone, even a Charr, can turn into a Avatar and has done so over the course of the personal story, right?

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Loesh.4697 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Gorgaan Peaudesang.8324 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    As for the norn Im already mad, The spirits are becoming a mastery FOR EVERYONE!? Why.

    Human characters in Guild Wars Eye of the North had the possibility to be blessed by the Spirits of the Wild.

    Still I don't feel its right considering how shafted the norn are, and have been. Why should I share one of the few things that heck only in lore really maters to my race? The humans don't share the six as masteries, the charr don't share their ranks as masteries. The asurans don't share their stuff nor do the Sylvari... Heck the sylvari had a WHOLE expansion with flair and depth poured onto them. Don't feel its really fair in the long run, but I know it doesn't matter either....

    You do realize that you can literally learn the magical dirges of the Five as any race and with the proper artifacts anyone, even a Charr, can turn into a Avatar and has done so over the course of the personal story, right?

    But none of that is permanent, none of its masteries. So it doesn't stand because this will be something we have till the end of Gw2; It's not like "Oh its only a story step, no worries its just this one time." It's legitamentally something that will be added in as features that we will use throughout the saga and potentially further depending on how they want to go about it. Until they do the same for the other races, Ill continue to be miffed.

    Plus as I stated above, the norn have already been shafted up to this point.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Loesh.4697 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Gorgaan Peaudesang.8324 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    As for the norn Im already mad, The spirits are becoming a mastery FOR EVERYONE!? Why.

    Human characters in Guild Wars Eye of the North had the possibility to be blessed by the Spirits of the Wild.

    Still I don't feel its right considering how shafted the norn are, and have been. Why should I share one of the few things that heck only in lore really maters to my race? The humans don't share the six as masteries, the charr don't share their ranks as masteries. The asurans don't share their stuff nor do the Sylvari... Heck the sylvari had a WHOLE expansion with flair and depth poured onto them. Don't feel its really fair in the long run, but I know it doesn't matter either....

    You do realize that you can literally learn the magical dirges of the Five as any race and with the proper artifacts anyone, even a Charr, can turn into a Avatar and has done so over the course of the personal story, right?

    But none of that is permanent, none of its masteries. So it doesn't stand because this will be something we have till the end of Gw2; It's not like "Oh its only a story step, no worries its just this one time." It's legitamentally something that will be added in as features that we will use throughout the saga and potentially further depending on how they want to go about it. Until they do the same for the other races, Ill continue to be miffed.

    Plus as I stated above, the norn have already been shafted up to this point.

    They are literally, permanent masteries in the Ancient Magics tab so that doesn't hold water. You could even argue the drudic oakheart abilities and the Shining Blade Signets of Agony are totally human magics that other races can use as masteries.

  • Stramatus.5219Stramatus.5219 Member ✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @RyuuChi.1463 said:
    Are you actually just mad that Anet made a race 3-dimensional instead of just "kill everything and everyone"? I didn't finish GW1 but I sure as hell played it, even got through a decent chunk of EotN before life got busy and the game's mechanics got too tiring to deal with. Not to mention, marching on Orr and Kryta could be entirely written as "you took our land, we take yours". It's entirely believable for a race that in GW2, is presented as harsh and militarily focused, this all just reads like you're stuck in the past because of your roleplay. And the only way the Forefire would work in the first place is if Adelbern was absolutely deranged (because what sane king would condemn his people to live through eternity as wandering, angry spirits?), and narratively speaking it's either have the Ascalonians eternally stuck as ghosts, or have them all be wiped out because the Charr had vastly superior firepower in comparison with the exception of Ebonhawke, or you pull something out your butt that lets the humans kill the Charr entirely which is just asking for actual bad writing imo. At least this way you still get to see Ascalonians in the game, even as enemies. And miss me with the "established lore" angle, there was effectively no lore about the Charr in GW2 other than they were big bad evil monsters who wanted to kill everything.

    Ah I see I seemingly struck a nerve. Care to explain how everyone sitting in a kumbaya circle is 3-dimensional? If anything the various relationships and geopolitical standings between races became far less interesting in GW2 due to the shift to Elder Dragons as the threat.

    Yes, the treaty between Ascalon/Kryta and the Charr was recently signed (at launch) but you have NPC's like Logan and Rytlock who knew each other beforehand, or places like Lion's Arch where these racial tensions basically didn't exist, or in the various Orders where all the races had worked to move past such things well before GW2 launched. There's still plenty of Charr-human racism in GW2, hell there's an NPC in the Maiden's Whisper whose repeating line involves her insinuating she'll kill any Charr that comes near her with a meat cleaver (which is laughable in and of itself but that's another tangent). There's tension. But it's not prevalent in the story, because it'd be a nightmare to write out. It also helps that the story entirely revolves around killing big threats that no single race can handle on its own, and there's nothing that brings people together like a common enemy, this is a well established fact.

    Yes I do believe I mentioned that being a likely limitation to game design and indeed a nightmare to write out all the possible branches. But unless community sentiment has changed, I believe people generally agree the Personal Story sucks.

    BTW, the Searing is effectively ancient history by now. It happened over 250 years ago, your character's great-great grandparents wouldn't even remember it, and Charr characters currently alive would have had no hand in what their great-great-great-great-great-great grandsires did. It's entirely understandable that, unless your character was actually alive and living as a non-infant in Ebonhawke by the time the ceasefire happened, to tell you to drop the racist angle in-character.

    I like how you're trying to reduce my points to "racist". No it's just that I don't buy that there wouldn't still be great distrust and conflict between these 2 particular races that isn't portrayed well within the game and personal story unless you hunt for it.

    While The Searing itself would be not ancient history, but at least history from long ago like how we'd view the 1700's, the conflict itself is not.

    "Remember The Searing."

  • @Stramatus.5219 said:
    Ah I see I seemingly struck a nerve. Care to explain how everyone sitting in a kumbaya circle is 3-dimensional? If anything the various relationships and geopolitical standings between races became far less interesting in GW2 due to the shift to Elder Dragons as the threat.

    Do I even have to go further than this strawman? Because that's what this is. It's a strawman. You aren't addressing the point, you're pretending I said everyone gets along, and pretending everyone gets along 100% of the time in GW2. They do not, as I stated.

    Also you are not your character (even if you control them and roleplay them), and I specifically stated in-character when I wrote my post, something that happened 250 years ago is actual ancient history and your character is being racist if they're bringing it up constantly for pity-points or to justify their hate, which is implied by your guildmates telling you the Searing is ancient history and to get over it. Have you considered that maybe, the problem is that Guild Wars 1 happened in your relatively recent memory and you've projected that onto your character? Because there's legitimately no reason for you to bring up the Searing regularly otherwise.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Loesh.4697 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Loesh.4697 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Gorgaan Peaudesang.8324 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    As for the norn Im already mad, The spirits are becoming a mastery FOR EVERYONE!? Why.

    Human characters in Guild Wars Eye of the North had the possibility to be blessed by the Spirits of the Wild.

    Still I don't feel its right considering how shafted the norn are, and have been. Why should I share one of the few things that heck only in lore really maters to my race? The humans don't share the six as masteries, the charr don't share their ranks as masteries. The asurans don't share their stuff nor do the Sylvari... Heck the sylvari had a WHOLE expansion with flair and depth poured onto them. Don't feel its really fair in the long run, but I know it doesn't matter either....

    You do realize that you can literally learn the magical dirges of the Five as any race and with the proper artifacts anyone, even a Charr, can turn into a Avatar and has done so over the course of the personal story, right?

    But none of that is permanent, none of its masteries. So it doesn't stand because this will be something we have till the end of Gw2; It's not like "Oh its only a story step, no worries its just this one time." It's legitamentally something that will be added in as features that we will use throughout the saga and potentially further depending on how they want to go about it. Until they do the same for the other races, Ill continue to be miffed.

    Plus as I stated above, the norn have already been shafted up to this point.

    They are literally, permanent masteries in the Ancient Magics tab so that doesn't hold water. You could even argue the drudic oakheart abilities and the Shining Blade Signets of Agony are totally human magics that other races can use as masteries.

    I mean I guess you could go there, but we are more than likely going to get a mastery line for each of the spirits of the wild. I mean it would be equivalent of getting masteries of the Six; It does hold water. This is LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY that makes the race unique, and they have yet to hand off that kind of thing from the other races in any form. Obscure magics and orders aside, it still is kinda dumb to give away something that the norn themselves haven't been allowed to realize in game as of this point where as other races theme has been left relatively intact and un-touched.

    As a norn player, one who was really excited to play a norn in guild wars when it was announced they would be playable. Coming from guild wars 1 and witnessing what they've done to the race, what they've denied us and what they will do going forward I can be upset. They haven't allowed us to really be norn but more just a hallow husk of a norn, we are just a big viking with tattoos but they have continuously forged and gone against what they were in the previous title (Excluding the very early portions of the living story. The only place where their culture was shown even in the slightest.)

    the norn can't shapeshift, not outside of kitten skills that have been horrible since I can't remember when. They don't have the blessings of the spirits nor do we have a way to obtain them or we didn't until now; I feel like this is a real slug in the gut though. It would be fine if we had more for the norn customization wise, and had been given more of our racial identity as a unique perk for our chosen race. (Charr are unique as are asuran by appearance, sylvari glow and also hold a unique appearance.) The norn however don't get that we get to look like giant humans; With tattoos and while tattoos are cool they don't hold up to what we had been shown in our introduction to them. These were powerful beings capable of becoming even more so by transformation, and were a force to be reckoned with and the lore backs this up 100% but it fails to be shown or witnessed in guild wars 2. And most players here don't pay attention to the lore, or the story really at least not alot of the ones I've met in game (The forum goers are a different beast.)

    I just want more polish and more unique things for the norn, I want them to stand out beside their fellow tyrians and not be ... I guess as they have been left to be. Because its sad how something so cool thematically has been dropped and left abandoned. (I remember choosing bear for my warrior, specifically to become a werebear and wreak havoc on the battlefield... sadly I learned that would be impossible.)

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    @RyuuChi.1463 said:

    @Stramatus.5219 said:
    Ah I see I seemingly struck a nerve. Care to explain how everyone sitting in a kumbaya circle is 3-dimensional? If anything the various relationships and geopolitical standings between races became far less interesting in GW2 due to the shift to Elder Dragons as the threat.

    Do I even have to go further than this strawman? Because that's what this is. It's a strawman. You aren't addressing the point, you're pretending I said everyone gets along, and pretending everyone gets along 100% of the time in GW2. They do not, as I stated.

    Also you are not your character (even if you control them and roleplay them), and I specifically stated in-character when I wrote my post, something that happened 250 years ago is actual ancient history and your character is being racist if they're bringing it up constantly for pity-points or to justify their hate, which is implied by your guildmates telling you the Searing is ancient history and to get over it. Have you considered that maybe, the problem is that Guild Wars 1 happened in your relatively recent memory and you've projected that onto your character? Because there's legitimately no reason for you to bring up the Searing regularly otherwise.

    Considering how you started your last post you have literally no room to talk about strawmanning, and this post isn't helping matters. Someone bringing up the Searing isn't automatically racist or even out for pity points, hell it doesn't even have to be brought up to justify hate. It's pointing out that Charr society as it was structured then, as it is structured now, can easily be used in order to pull off some large scale disasters. You could, very reasonably, even take this very event and say that while the Charr aren't worshiping Jormag they are definitely doing this for similar reasons as before. The Legions fear of a loss of control and need to dominate the battlefield caused a splinter of them to try and draw power from an Elder Dragon AGAIN, it'd be crazy if people didn't bring up the obvious parallels to previous events.

  • @Loesh.4697 said:
    Considering how you started your last post you have literally no room to talk about strawmanning, and this post isn't helping matters.

    My post started with hyperbole that my post further broke down as it went on. With all due possible respect, read the whole post next time instead of focusing on the first sentence, because I did explain my stance as I went on and actually addressed the points.

    No, bringing up the Searing isn't automatically racist because it's a historical event that characters in-game even go so far as to study, but if your Guildmates are, in-character as a roleplayer, are telling you to drop it because it's ancient history, it sounds to me less like offhand comments and more repeatedly using it to get some kind of pity or justification for some type of hatred. You don't just bring up the Searing out of the blue for funsies, there's usually a reason, and their guildmates reaction implies this.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    I mean I guess you could go there, but we are more than likely going to get a mastery line for each of the spirits of the wild. I mean it would be equivalent of getting masteries of the Six; It does hold water. This is LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY that makes the race unique, and they have yet to hand off that kind of thing from the other races in any form. Obscure magics and orders aside, it still is kinda dumb to give away something that the norn themselves haven't been allowed to realize in game as of this point where as other races theme has been left relatively intact and un-touched.

    As a norn player, one who was really excited to play a norn in guild wars when it was announced they would be playable. Coming from guild wars 1 and witnessing what they've done to the race, what they've denied us and what they will do going forward I can be upset. They haven't allowed us to really be norn but more just a hallow husk of a norn, we are just a big viking with tattoos but they have continuously forged and gone against what they were in the previous title (Excluding the very early portions of the living story. The only place where their culture was shown even in the slightest.)

    the norn can't shapeshift, not outside of kitten skills that have been horrible since I can't remember when. They don't have the blessings of the spirits nor do we have a way to obtain them or we didn't until now; I feel like this is a real slug in the gut though. It would be fine if we had more for the norn customization wise, and had been given more of our racial identity as a unique perk for our chosen race. (Charr are unique as are asuran by appearance, sylvari glow and also hold a unique appearance.) The norn however don't get that we get to look like giant humans; With tattoos and while tattoos are cool they don't hold up to what we had been shown in our introduction to them. These were powerful beings capable of becoming even more so by transformation, and were a force to be reckoned with and the lore backs this up 100% but it fails to be shown or witnessed in guild wars 2. And most players here don't pay attention to the lore, or the story really at least not alot of the ones I've met in game (The forum goers are a different beast.)

    I just want more polish and more unique things for the norn, I want them to stand out beside their fellow tyrians and not be ... I guess as they have been left to be. Because its sad how something so cool thematically has been dropped and left abandoned. (I remember choosing bear for my warrior, specifically to become a werebear and wreak havoc on the battlefield... sadly I learned that would be impossible.)

    Look Thornwolf, I understand, I really do. I sympathize even, i'd reach through the internet and give you a hug right now if I could. What they did to Braham and Eir is pathetic, Norn representation deserves more then this drunken caricature. I also dislike that unlike Heart of Thorns and Path of Fire the Norn have to share their primary story with the Charr, maybe even have the Charr take their spotlight. I really liked Guild Wars 1 Norn, they were drunk and dumb sometimes yes, but it was tempered an admirable sense of adventure and personal pride that made them the ultimate manifestation of the individual. Even how their interacted with the spirits as something to be revered, rather then worshiped, spoke of how Norn ultimately only answered to Norn and it was the strength of their people that sustained them.

    At the same time, do you need to take it out on human players? Our situations are more similar then you think. We've had certain elements of our faith either ripped out or dumbed down over the expansions, expanded occasionally on in the Living World, but not as much as I would like. If you're a human follower of Balthazar you don't get a SINGLE LINE OF DIALOGUE about the God of War, not one, and more then anyone you should be talking to them. I'm not happy that I can't play a Dervish or Paragon, use avatar forms despite them still clearly existing lorewise, but those are the breaks. We're both limited by gameplay, the most I can get is the underpowered elite spec skills that I can't use in Arena anyway.

    I'm not saying you're stupid, or even entirely wrong, just that it's less black and white then humans just being the center of the story.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Loesh.4697 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    I mean I guess you could go there, but we are more than likely going to get a mastery line for each of the spirits of the wild. I mean it would be equivalent of getting masteries of the Six; It does hold water. This is LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY that makes the race unique, and they have yet to hand off that kind of thing from the other races in any form. Obscure magics and orders aside, it still is kinda dumb to give away something that the norn themselves haven't been allowed to realize in game as of this point where as other races theme has been left relatively intact and un-touched.

    As a norn player, one who was really excited to play a norn in guild wars when it was announced they would be playable. Coming from guild wars 1 and witnessing what they've done to the race, what they've denied us and what they will do going forward I can be upset. They haven't allowed us to really be norn but more just a hallow husk of a norn, we are just a big viking with tattoos but they have continuously forged and gone against what they were in the previous title (Excluding the very early portions of the living story. The only place where their culture was shown even in the slightest.)

    the norn can't shapeshift, not outside of kitten skills that have been horrible since I can't remember when. They don't have the blessings of the spirits nor do we have a way to obtain them or we didn't until now; I feel like this is a real slug in the gut though. It would be fine if we had more for the norn customization wise, and had been given more of our racial identity as a unique perk for our chosen race. (Charr are unique as are asuran by appearance, sylvari glow and also hold a unique appearance.) The norn however don't get that we get to look like giant humans; With tattoos and while tattoos are cool they don't hold up to what we had been shown in our introduction to them. These were powerful beings capable of becoming even more so by transformation, and were a force to be reckoned with and the lore backs this up 100% but it fails to be shown or witnessed in guild wars 2. And most players here don't pay attention to the lore, or the story really at least not alot of the ones I've met in game (The forum goers are a different beast.)

    I just want more polish and more unique things for the norn, I want them to stand out beside their fellow tyrians and not be ... I guess as they have been left to be. Because its sad how something so cool thematically has been dropped and left abandoned. (I remember choosing bear for my warrior, specifically to become a werebear and wreak havoc on the battlefield... sadly I learned that would be impossible.)

    Look Thornwolf, I understand, I really do. I sympathize even, i'd reach through the internet and give you a hug right now if I could. What they did to Braham and Eir is pathetic, Norn representation deserves more then this drunken caricature. I also dislike that unlike Heart of Thorns and Path of Fire the Norn have to share their primary story with the Charr, maybe even have the Charr take their spotlight. I really liked Guild Wars 1 Norn, they were drunk and dumb sometimes yes, but it was tempered an admirable sense of adventure and personal pride that made them the ultimate manifestation of the individual. Even how their interacted with the spirits as something to be revered, rather then worshiped, spoke of how Norn ultimately only answered to Norn and it was the strength of their people that sustained them.

    At the same time, do you need to take it out on human players? Our situations are more similar then you think. We've had certain elements of our faith either ripped out or dumbed down over the expansions, expanded occasionally on in the Living World, but not as much as I would like. If you're a human follower of Balthazar you don't get a SINGLE LINE OF DIALOGUE about the God of War, not one, and more then anyone you should be talking to them. I'm not happy that I can't play a Dervish or Paragon, use avatar forms despite them still clearly existing lorewise, but those are the breaks. We're both limited by gameplay, the most I can get is the underpowered elite spec skills that I can't use in Arena anyway.

    I'm not saying you're stupid, or even entirely wrong, just that it's less black and white then humans just being the center of the story.

    I didn't mean for it to sound like I was angry at the human players, I guess I just know norn are the unwanted children of A-net. They probably dislike even adding them to the pool of playable races. That said I never realized how bad it was for the humans, and now im more irritated at the charr who not only get to have the cool aesthetic of being one. The cool center focal point from rytlock and now they get to share (Yea... steal) the norns story with jormag; So maybe Im more alongside you as I originally anticipated... Kindred spirits and all that.

    Truly... the humans have their god forms, the norn their werebeast forms and neither get to be used and A-net just laughs about it. I guess you guys do understand what us norn players feel, thanks for reminding me of just how much the humans have had stripped away from them.

  • ThatOddOne.4387ThatOddOne.4387 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    It's still not even the Searing. The charr still prosecuted the war after the Searing and after they had overthrown the Flame Legion.

    My previous point still stands, there are no charr who really regret what charr did during the Searing and afterwards (Or go "IT WAS THE FLAME LEGION ALL THEM"), whilst there are plenty of humans who have regrets about similar atrocities that humans have committed (Even if they were not even directly involved/affected or even of the same nation).

    This is just the character of their race, and I don't get why people can't just accept that and instead need to find a way that the charr are somehow 'justified' in performing those atrocities, when if it was the humans they would be roundly criticised and lambasted.

    It's called double standards and I see it in full effect when it comes to charr and humans.

  • ugrakarma.9416ugrakarma.9416 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @Loesh.4697 said:
    At the same time, do you need to take it out on human players? Our situations are more similar then you think. We've had certain elements of our faith either ripped out or dumbed down over the expansions, expanded occasionally on in the Living World, but not as much as I would like. If you're a human follower of Balthazar you don't get a SINGLE LINE OF DIALOGUE about the God of War, not one, and more then anyone you should be talking to them. I'm not happy that I can't play a Dervish or Paragon, use avatar forms despite them still clearly existing lorewise, but those are the breaks. We're both limited by gameplay, the most I can get is the underpowered elite spec skills that I can't use in Arena anyway.

    I'm not saying you're stupid, or even entirely wrong, just that it's less black and white then humans just being the center of the story.

    unfortunately the current Tyria is drawn as a world based on a tragic existentialism (whether intentional or accidental I don't know), so it is not surprising that all races are drawn as erratic or dumber. In this kind of existentialism, which may be called epicurianism, the gods have abandoned us, the world was "created by the chaos" and has no big purpose, we exist merely because we think we exist so we be anything we think we can be.. this is unfortunately a very anti-theist setup and cosmology..... Particularly I do not like existentialism, I am just recognizing how the world of Tyria was designed. For those like us, who are into Gods related lore is a really bad news....

    "It's a testament to the folly of the humans and their gods. They say Arah was sacred, but all I see is one big dragon nest."(Rytlock Brimstone)

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    @RyuuChi.1463 said:

    @Loesh.4697 said:
    Considering how you started your last post you have literally no room to talk about strawmanning, and this post isn't helping matters.

    My post started with hyperbole that my post further broke down as it went on. With all due possible respect, read the whole post next time instead of focusing on the first sentence, because I did explain my stance as I went on and actually addressed the points.

    No, bringing up the Searing isn't automatically racist because it's a historical event that characters in-game even go so far as to study, but if your Guildmates are, in-character as a roleplayer, are telling you to drop it because it's ancient history, it sounds to me less like offhand comments and more repeatedly using it to get some kind of pity or justification for some type of hatred. You don't just bring up the Searing out of the blue for funsies, there's usually a reason, and their guildmates reaction implies this.

    First impressions color everything you say after, and your hyperbole definitely did whether you think you did a good job doing a breakdown or not. Strums post wasn't hostile towards anyone in particular, even the way they framed the conversation with their guild was detached and matter of fact, and didn't warrant the response you gave it. Even some things you provided AFTER that are questionable in tone.

  • Stramatus.5219Stramatus.5219 Member ✭✭
    edited September 27, 2019

    @RyuuChi.1463 said:

    @Loesh.4697 said:
    Considering how you started your last post you have literally no room to talk about strawmanning, and this post isn't helping matters.

    My post started with hyperbole that my post further broke down as it went on. With all due possible respect, read the whole post next time instead of focusing on the first sentence, because I did explain my stance as I went on and actually addressed the points.

    No, bringing up the Searing isn't automatically racist because it's a historical event that characters in-game even go so far as to study, but if your Guildmates are, in-character as a roleplayer, are telling you to drop it because it's ancient history, it sounds to me less like offhand comments and more repeatedly using it to get some kind of pity or justification for some type of hatred. You don't just bring up the Searing out of the blue for funsies, there's usually a reason, and their guildmates reaction implies this.

    No, the comment about guildmates refers to them (most of who I also played with in GW1), then making Charr characters in GW2 and perpetuating the dolyaksh*t narrative of "retaking a homeland" which they know better about lore than to keep spouting. You're focusing too much on The Searing and trying to paint me as just saying "hay guise hur dur the searing!!!11!". My point about that was to point out how far the Charr were willing to go on a campaign of genocide and the fact that they were willing to take that to lands outside of Ascalon that had nothing to do with the Ascalon/Charr conflict. They've since moved away from the Shaman Caste of the Flame Legion, but they still have built up a big technological industrial war machine and as a society continue to live in a very war-centric manner.

    My point is that it feels like a huge disconnect to me that we as a human player character are not given the option to feel much more distrusting of the Charr considering that has been their history up until barely a few years ago in-game timeline. Everyone is "best buds" (Rytlock and Logan aside) and that doesn't feel realistic to me within the established timeline, putting aside my opinions on the Ascalon/Charr conflict. The whole history of the Charr is one of conflict within themselves or against others be it the Humans, the Ogres, The Grawl, or The Forgotton.

    "Remember The Searing."

  • @ThatOddOne.4387 said:
    It's still not even the Searing. The charr still prosecuted the war after the Searing and after they had overthrown the Flame Legion.

    My previous point still stands, there are no charr who really regret what charr did during the Searing and afterwards (Or go "IT WAS THE FLAME LEGION ALL THEM"), whilst there are plenty of humans who have regrets about similar atrocities that humans have committed (Even if they were not even directly involved/affected or even of the same nation).

    This is just the character of their race, and I don't get why people can't just accept that and instead need to find a way that the charr are somehow 'justified' in performing those atrocities, when if it was the humans they would be roundly criticised and lambasted.

    It's called double standards and I see it in full effect when it comes to charr and humans.

    Charr are raised in a military hierarchy and given military training from a young age. The majority of their race is military minded. In the case of military history, one could look at the Searing as a major military victory due to how it allowed the Charr to get a foothold back into Ascalon (despite the destruction caused). The Charr do point out however that the Flame Legion shamans were the ones that actually did the Searing (as they were the only ones with the magic to pull it off). The Olmakhan would likely think differently of the events due to how they're more at one with nature, but nobody's asked them.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    I didn't mean for it to sound like I was angry at the human players, I guess I just know norn are the unwanted children of A-net. They probably dislike even adding them to the pool of playable races. That said I never realized how bad it was for the humans, and now im more irritated at the charr who not only get to have the cool aesthetic of being one. The cool center focal point from rytlock and now they get to share (Yea... steal) the norns story with jormag; So maybe Im more alongside you as I originally anticipated... Kindred spirits and all that.

    Truly... the humans have their god forms, the norn their werebeast forms and neither get to be used and A-net just laughs about it. I guess you guys do understand what us norn players feel, thanks for reminding me of just how much the humans have had stripped away from them.

    If it helps you feel better, I feel like Anet is really trying to be aware of Norn this time around, even if it seems like they're doing a bad job of it right now. Yes how Braham behaved is a tired sterotype this episode, but I feel like the fact it was played for seriousness rather then just comedy indicates the rest of the Saga for Braham is going to be about trying to do something other then get drunk and party, he'll be rejoining his old hunting party at the Vigil camp and I doubt the next episode is going to be as lighthearted as this one.

    I think Anet is more unaware of things at times, rather then deliberately laughing at or being malicious to the playerbase, which is why threads like these are important. They let Anet know what people are talking about and what they want, they even got a response from someone on the development team. Hopefully from here on in they keep in mind that the Norn want to play a big hand in this plot too.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Loesh.4697 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    I didn't mean for it to sound like I was angry at the human players, I guess I just know norn are the unwanted children of A-net. They probably dislike even adding them to the pool of playable races. That said I never realized how bad it was for the humans, and now im more irritated at the charr who not only get to have the cool aesthetic of being one. The cool center focal point from rytlock and now they get to share (Yea... steal) the norns story with jormag; So maybe Im more alongside you as I originally anticipated... Kindred spirits and all that.

    Truly... the humans have their god forms, the norn their werebeast forms and neither get to be used and A-net just laughs about it. I guess you guys do understand what us norn players feel, thanks for reminding me of just how much the humans have had stripped away from them.

    If it helps you feel better, I feel like Anet is really trying to be aware of Norn this time around, even if it seems like they're doing a bad job of it right now. Yes how Braham behaved is a tired sterotype this episode, but I feel like the fact it was played for seriousness rather then just comedy indicates the rest of the Saga for Braham is going to be about trying to do something other then get drunk and party, he'll be rejoining his old hunting party at the Vigil camp and I doubt the next episode is going to be as lighthearted as this one.

    I think Anet is more unaware of things at times, rather then deliberately laughing at or being malicious to the playerbase, which is why threads like these are important. They let Anet know what people are talking about and what they want, they even got a response from someone on the development team. Hopefully from here on in they keep in mind that the Norn want to play a big hand in this plot too.

    I hope so. Because jormag is the main antagonist of the norn, one that was teased when we started our long journey what seems like eons ago. I don't want to have the charr steal this one from the norn; Id love for the norn to get back to their roots and for them to give the playerbase the norn as we know them. Both play-ably and in the narrative but its just hard to have faith, Given all that has happened to all of us.

  • Gotta love how Braham "isn't norn enough". Especially when he reacted badly to a person telling him to drop an artifact that could crack the tooth of Jormag and make his (and his mother's) legend immortal. But nah, that's not being a norn. A young norn seeing a chance to become an immortal legend and being told to stop and go home, of course they'll react badly. It's almost as bad as the people who scream "Norn are individualistic, therefore Eir isn't being a Norn because she joined destiny's edge!" But... she founded it, and isn't the thing "individualistic" meaning they don't conform to any one type or shame somebody for choosing a path? The Norn, whose goal is to be known for doing something well. Whether that be by being the best smith in the shiverpeaks, the best storytelling, the best hunter, or for defeating dragons! Of course, let us hate a norn for not being enough of a norn... because the PC actively tried holding him back and he refused. And then he nearly got to Jormag before our actions stole that from him, and made him feel like he failed his guild, the spirits, everything.

    Also, GW2 norn aren't smaller, gutted GW1 norn. It's just we see a hell of a lot more of their culture and people in GW2 then we ever did in GW1. If you cry about them being drunken laughing stocks, that's because that's all you bother to look at. Gameplay does not equal lore, otherwise we'd mostly be playing Norn for immense stat buffs lol. And they are the same size as in GW1. It's just we see greater variety of height now.

    As for the "dolyakcrud of retaking the homeland." I don't recall the charr in GW2... ever talking about Orr, or Kryta. They only say that in regards to Ascalon. And guess what, there is no evidence they planned to use the searing on Kryta or Orr, especially since they were totally crushing the Orrian military without real effort. You could suspect they may have had it ready to use in Orr because there are searing cauldrens there, but we don't know that they planned to use them.

    Charr don't feel sorry/hate the searing, but they also don't want to use it again. Hell the searing cauldron in Ascalon, you have a CHARR wanting it destroyed, broken apart and melted down rather then leaving it there, even "drained" of power. It's a priory human who wants it to remain intact.

    Likewise, why would they feel sorry for it. It simply broke the wall. Yes it killed people and damaged the land, but it didn't cause mutations or horrible suffering. It was a weapon used to break the defensive line of a foe. Hell, from their perspective, Adelbern did far more damage to his own people with the foefire. The searing just killed you, or didn't kill you. (And Adelbern was shown to be mad in early post-searing, trying to murder a Krytan who was there simply to offer help).

    The Charr and Ascalonians saw each other as invading foes hell-bent on their destruction. The searing was a major blow against the Ascalon lines, allowing the Charr to finally start taking the upper hand. Hell, if we really want to look at it. The Charr are the single race that has stood up against humanity's expansion and pushes, fought back, and took back their area. Did they do horrific things? hell yes. But don't dare be screaming about how the Charr are the evil ones if you fully support the idea of humanity pushing the Charr back out of Ascalon, slaughtering or forcing them to retreat.

  • @Kalavier.1097 said:
    Gotta love how Braham "isn't norn enough". Especially when he reacted badly to a person telling him to drop an artifact that could crack the tooth of Jormag and make his (and his mother's) legend immortal. But nah, that's not being a norn. A young norn seeing a chance to become an immortal legend and being told to stop and go home, of course they'll react badly. It's almost as bad as the people who scream "Norn are individualistic, therefore Eir isn't being a Norn because she joined destiny's edge!" But... she founded it, and isn't the thing "individualistic" meaning they don't conform to any one type or shame somebody for choosing a path? The Norn, whose goal is to be known for doing something well. Whether that be by being the best smith in the shiverpeaks, the best storytelling, the best hunter, or for defeating dragons! Of course, let us hate a norn for not being enough of a norn... because the PC actively tried holding him back and he refused. And then he nearly got to Jormag before our actions stole that from him, and made him feel like he failed his guild, the spirits, everything.

    Also, GW2 norn aren't smaller, gutted GW1 norn. It's just we see a hell of a lot more of their culture and people in GW2 then we ever did in GW1. If you cry about them being drunken laughing stocks, that's because that's all you bother to look at. Gameplay does not equal lore, otherwise we'd mostly be playing Norn for immense stat buffs lol. And they are the same size as in GW1. It's just we see greater variety of height now.

    As for the "dolyakcrud of retaking the homeland." I don't recall the charr in GW2... ever talking about Orr, or Kryta. They only say that in regards to Ascalon. And guess what, there is no evidence they planned to use the searing on Kryta or Orr, especially since they were totally crushing the Orrian military without real effort. You could suspect they may have had it ready to use in Orr because there are searing cauldrens there, but we don't know that they planned to use them.

    Charr don't feel sorry/hate the searing, but they also don't want to use it again. Hell the searing cauldron in Ascalon, you have a CHARR wanting it destroyed, broken apart and melted down rather then leaving it there, even "drained" of power. It's a priory human who wants it to remain intact.

    Likewise, why would they feel sorry for it. It simply broke the wall. Yes it killed people and damaged the land, but it didn't cause mutations or horrible suffering. It was a weapon used to break the defensive line of a foe. Hell, from their perspective, Adelbern did far more damage to his own people with the foefire. The searing just killed you, or didn't kill you. (And Adelbern was shown to be mad in early post-searing, trying to murder a Krytan who was there simply to offer help).

    The Charr and Ascalonians saw each other as invading foes hell-bent on their destruction. The searing was a major blow against the Ascalon lines, allowing the Charr to finally start taking the upper hand. Hell, if we really want to look at it. The Charr are the single race that has stood up against humanity's expansion and pushes, fought back, and took back their area. Did they do horrific things? hell yes. But don't dare be screaming about how the Charr are the evil ones if you fully support the idea of humanity pushing the Charr back out of Ascalon, slaughtering or forcing them to retreat.

    Would be instresting if somehow in guild wars 1 the human character you paly stopped the searing oh what changes that would do to history and it would deal a blow to the shaman charr's promis of victory and may caused a splitering of the legion earlier awith Ascalon still standing as a nation and the great wall standing as provef that walls work cannot defeat your foes on the battle field do it from a wall. Ascalon still standing would leave the charr still at war with Ascalon and bitter that they still did not win.

  • Stramatus.5219Stramatus.5219 Member ✭✭
    edited September 28, 2019

    @Kalavier.1097 said:
    As for the "dolyakcrud of retaking the homeland." I don't recall the charr in GW2... ever talking about Orr, or Kryta. They only say that in regards to Ascalon. And guess what, there is no evidence they planned to use the searing on Kryta or Orr, especially since they were totally crushing the Orrian military without real effort. You could suspect they may have had it ready to use in Orr because there are searing cauldrens there, but we don't know that they planned to use them.

    I could be forgetting as it's been a long time since I've played it, but I could have sworn the Bonus Mission where you play as Saul D'Allessio showed Searing cauldrons? Then again, maybe not. Like I said, I don't remember. To suggest they weren't going to use them is plausible, but they had them there (confirmed for Orr at least) regardless. It was always an option. Considering at the time that the campaign became one of human eradication, I wouldn't put it past them.

    Charr don't feel sorry/hate the searing, but they also don't want to use it again. Hell the searing cauldron in Ascalon, you have a CHARR wanting it destroyed, broken apart and melted down rather then leaving it there, even "drained" of power. It's a priory human who wants it to remain intact.

    Is that part of the Charr personal story or perhaps NPC dialogue I missed in that area of Iron Marches?

    Likewise, why would they feel sorry for it. It simply broke the wall. Yes it killed people and damaged the land, but it didn't cause mutations or horrible suffering. It was a weapon used to break the defensive line of a foe. Hell, from their perspective, Adelbern did far more damage to his own people with the foefire. The searing just killed you, or didn't kill you. (And Adelbern was shown to be mad in early post-searing, trying to murder a Krytan who was there simply to offer help).

    What? The Searing completely blasted and destroyed all of Ascalon. It didn't just "break a wall". The land was completely scorched, the rivers and lakes dried up or turned into a purple ooze. Plantlife was all but destroyed throughout the entire land-area of Ascalon. Presumably hundreds or thousands (not sure what the population number of the kingdom of Ascalon would have been) were killed. And all throughout Ascalon (in GW1 at least) are Searing crystals embedded into the land, some bigger than others. Not sure why you are completely downplaying what the event was.

    As for Adelbern and the Foefire. I will agree that to the people of Ascalon it is a fate that is ultimately worse than death. Adelbern and the Foefire will get no defense from me.

    The Charr and Ascalonians saw each other as invading foes hell-bent on their destruction. The searing was a major blow against the Ascalon lines, allowing the Charr to finally start taking the upper hand. Hell, if we really want to look at it. The Charr are the single race that has stood up against humanity's expansion and pushes, fought back, and took back their area. Did they do horrific things? hell yes. But don't dare be screaming about how the Charr are the evil ones if you fully support the idea of humanity pushing the Charr back out of Ascalon, slaughtering or forcing them to retreat.

    I'm not at all saying the humans are without fault here. It would be one thing if they settled the lands below the Great Northern Wall and left it at that, but they didn't. They expanded north well beyond the wall and forced Charr out. No one would say the humans are without their own faults in this conflict. The issue is the Charr escalated the conflict big time. Ultimately Ascalon was reduced to a smoldering heap of scorched earth, and then the outcomes of Orr and Kryta were changed forever.

    Edit: Another thing. What's up with those war plans on a war table in the Black Citadel that is clearly a map of Queensdale and the gate of Divinity's Reach?

    "Remember The Searing."

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 28, 2019

    Um, as a matter of fact the Searing broke everything BUT the wall, which is how Adelbern held out for thirty more years, the Searing hadn't completely destroyed it's main target but instead reduced everything around to ash. According the Flameseeker Prophecies it's estimated this rain of fire lasted for three days and three nights too, and those Searing Crystals absolutely mutated the local animals, like the Windriders which were harvested for researching Ereudine Elixer in Serenity Temple.

    As for the Searing Cauldron in the Iron Marches, it's worth noting that the Charr is anxious about the Cauldron because he's worried that the Flame Legion will use that magic on a Charr village.

  • @Telwyn.1630 said:
    Would be instresting if somehow in guild wars 1 the human character you paly stopped the searing oh what changes that would do to history and it would deal a blow to the shaman charr's promis of victory and may caused a splitering of the legion earlier awith Ascalon still standing as a nation and the great wall standing as provef that walls work cannot defeat your foes on the battle field do it from a wall. Ascalon still standing would leave the charr still at war with Ascalon and bitter that they still did not win.

    Being honest as somebody who loves toying with alternate timelines and stuff, if the searing was stopped (and was stopped every time the Charr tried casting it near the wall at least), much of history would change.

    Krytan's monarchy wouldn't crumble, and the white mantle would never come to power. Orr would remain intact, while still being a weak military, it may grow stronger. Eventually the issues between Kryta and Ascalon may resolve, but that's a huge maybe.

    @Stramatus.5219 said:

    Charr don't feel sorry/hate the searing, but they also don't want to use it again. Hell the searing cauldron in Ascalon, you have a CHARR wanting it destroyed, broken apart and melted down rather then leaving it there, even "drained" of power. It's a priory human who wants it to remain intact.

    Is that part of the Charr personal story or perhaps NPC dialogue I missed in that area of Iron Marches?

    It's at the original searing cauldren in Ascalon, occasionally there is an event to stop flame legion from trying to reactivate it.

    Likewise, why would they feel sorry for it. It simply broke the wall. Yes it killed people and damaged the land, but it didn't cause mutations or horrible suffering. It was a weapon used to break the defensive line of a foe. Hell, from their perspective, Adelbern did far more damage to his own people with the foefire. The searing just killed you, or didn't kill you. (And Adelbern was shown to be mad in early post-searing, trying to murder a Krytan who was there simply to offer help).

    What? The Searing completely blasted and destroyed all of Ascalon. It didn't just "break a wall". The land was completely scorched, the rivers and lakes dried up or turned into a purple ooze. Plantlife was all but destroyed throughout the entire land-area of Ascalon. Presumably hundreds or thousands (not sure what the population number of the kingdom of Ascalon would have been) were killed. And all throughout Ascalon (in GW1 at least) are Searing crystals embedded into the land, some bigger than others. Not sure whjy you are completely downplaying what the event was.

    At the time, yes. But Ascalon has basically made a complete recovery. There was no long lasting, permanant damage to the land that prevents people from living them. Compare it to a nuke, which can cause the region to experiance issues and possibly be unlivable.

    To a Charr in the present day, they wouldn't look around and go "kitten, the Searing caused so much suffering." They'd look around and see the broken wall as being the lasting legacy of the searing. Nobody alive besides the ghosts would remember what the land was like back then.

    Edit: Another thing. What's up with those war plans on a war table in the Black Citadel that is clearly a map of Queensdale and the gate of Divinity's Reach?

    I always took it as generic maps being laid out. Iron legion was the one who extended the hand of peace, twice toward humanity. First time pirates sabotaged it by stealing the relics and the new human prince escalated the conflict around Ebonhawke. Second time They got humanity to return the Claw of the Khan-ur, likely Smodur's chip to get Ash onboard with it (and blood, somewhat). Either way, Charr are known for having backup plans. They have an entire defense tactic in place should the Asura gate be used for invasion after all.

    We know the legions basically canceled all attacks on Kryta or other regions after the first big push post searing, and focused entirely on Ebonhawke.

  • Loesh.4697Loesh.4697 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 28, 2019

    I'm not sure saying 'At the time' is exactly the best defense of the Charr. They unleashed demons on the land, turned it to an arid wasteland, and indeed said demons consumed the souls of their own and their enemies in the service of their conquest. One doesn't need to see the physical effects of something done in the past to feel empathy, not unless they have numbed it themselves. The mentality of their culture is monstrous, and to be completely blunt the destruction of their empire and pushing them back north seemed to be an objective positive for literally everyone they lived around. Saying they're good because they 'Stood up to human expansion' doesn't mean much when they were upset about a challenge to their own colonial plans, where the motivations of humans tended to be more mixed in terms of conquest, migration, or even trying to actively improve the world around them. Humans expanded with the notion of turning Tyria into a paradise, and that paradise held room for other races and nature despite Balthazar's urgings, Melandru and Dwayna would see it no other way. Charr expanded based on the notion of conquest, enslaving and destroying all who opposed their supremacy, and it paints as much even in GW2's own description of them in Ecology.

    With all due respect it feels like you're whitewashing how evil the Legions used to be, and to an extent still are. Their motto is 'Victory at any cost' not 'Victory so long as we're morally upright', notions of honor and valor exist in Charr society but they are twisted towards the Legions own milliterisic bent, and that's come to a head in Icebrood where their fascist undertones have become explicit rather then background dressing. I find it highly unlikely the Legions would withold from using the Searing Cauldrons to defeat their enemies if they trusted magic to work for them and had the ability to invoke it, instead the expulsion of the Flame Legion in the aftermath of Kalla's death robbed them of the capacity to use dark magic to their own ends. They are unable, not unwilling.

    I also don't believe for a nano-second that someone like Bangar or his cronies would withhold conquering Kryta or any other territory if they had the means within their grasp. This isn't a new development either, Charr exceptionalism has existed for over a thousand years and many believe that Tyria is their right as the superior species. He's been biding his time, as they all have, if Ebonhawke fell then the rest of the human nations would be next. The Olmakhan said it themselves, Charr society had organized itself around death and warfare, they would continue to conquer and destroy until they were the only ones left, and then they would kill each other too.

    Of Tyria's assembled nations the Legions have the must unsustainable, they've been the most unsustainable for awhile, and the center cannot hold.

  • @Loesh.4697 said:
    I'm not sure saying 'At the time' is exactly the best defense of the Charr. They unleashed demons on the land, turned it to an arid wasteland, and indeed said demons consumed the souls of their own and their enemies in the service of their conquest. One doesn't need to see the physical effects of something done in the past to feel empathy, not unless they have numbed it themselves. The mentality of their culture is monstrous, and to be completely blunt the destruction of their empire and pushing them back north seemed to be an objective positive for literally everyone they lived around. Saying they're good because they 'Stood up to human expansion' doesn't mean much when they were upset about a challenge to their own colonial plans, where the motivations of humans tended to be more mixed in terms of conquest, migration, or even trying to actively improve the world around them. Humans expanded with the notion of turning Tyria into a paradise, and that paradise held room for other races and nature despite Balthazar's urgings, Melandru and Dwayna would see it no other way. Charr expanded based on the notion of conquest, enslaving and destroying all who opposed their supremacy, and it paints as much even in GW2's own description of them in Ecology.

    Blaming all charr for titan release when it was just flame legion, and in general the titans are viewed poorly by all modern charr. They turned it into a wasteland, yes, but they also helped heal the damages done and return it to life. The titans consumed souls at times yes, but literally nobody knows this detail in universe. As pointed out, the time a charr learned what the titans were doing, it was after he died.

    The funny thing is, as far as we can actually see the Charr didn't even try expanding past the region of Ascalon, until humanity attacked them. Then when the Charr finally got a really good push (the searing) they invaded the other two nations. The mentality of the Charr culture is actually changing however, and Iron legion is at the head of that. The Charr are changing, and we see that all over Grothmar. Equal parts for cooperation and peace, and old ways and violence.

    Also, I once again never said they are "good" for fighting back. Just pointing out that of the many races and cultures humanity has forcibly shoved aside or destroyed, the Charr are the one who managed to retake what they had before humanity came and kicked them down. Also we have not heard anything indicating the Charr were actively pushing to take more land. IIRC, they described Ascalon explicitly as being hunting grounds. Not "Tyria", Ascalon.

    If humans were making Tyria a paradise for many races, I wonder why they actively displaced, enslaved, or sought to wipe out numerous other races. Charr took ascalon, and were there a while before humanity came in and kicked them out. Yes, the charr have been a war-driven race, but we have seen them start to change. We see easily that Charr can cooperate with other races entirely, and have strong agriculture.

    With all due respect it feels like you're whitewashing how evil the Legions used to be, and to an extent still are. Their motto is 'Victory at any cost' not 'Victory so long as we're morally upright', notions of honor and valor exist in Charr society but they are twisted towards the Legions own milliterisic bent, and that's come to a head in Icebrood where their fascist undertones have become explicit rather then background dressing. I find it highly unlikely the Legions would withold from using the Searing Cauldrons to defeat their enemies if they trusted magic to work for them and had the ability to invoke it, instead the expulsion of the Flame Legion in the aftermath of Kalla's death robbed them of the capacity to use dark magic to their own ends. They are unable, not unwilling.

    I feel like you are washing the Charr as still being totally evil and brutal, like they were in GW1 despite obvious signs that Charr society has changed, and is continuing to change.

    I'd completely point out that the Charr are unwilling. You don't get "unable but not unwilling" from factions who would rather rely on tech and physical might over magic and magical artifacts. And again, they know exactly were one is, and that it actually can function (If event fails, the flame legion uses it to burn down a nearby village). And what's the reaction of the legions/Charr to this? They would rather smash it apart and make it impossible to be used, rather then study it or try to use it themselves.

    I also don't believe for a nano-second that someone like Bangar or his cronies would withhold conquering Kryta or any other territory if they had the means within their grasp. This isn't a new development either, Charr exceptionalism has existed for over a thousand years and many believe that Tyria is their right as the superior species. He's been biding his time, as they all have, if Ebonhawke fell then the rest of the human nations would be next. The Olmakhan said it themselves, Charr society had organized itself around death and warfare, they would continue to conquer and destroy until they were the only ones left, and then they would kill each other too.

    Only from what I've seen, the Charr viewed Ascalon as their hunting grounds, and didn't show signs of wanting to go past that until humanity kicked them out. So they retalitaed with attacking all humans nearby. And yes, Bangar would invade Kryta, but that's the key point.

    He literally can't devote the forces required to even attempt it, due to other factors. He agreed to the treaty because he absolutely knew he would never be able to win fighting Iron and Ash, alongside with Flame and other local problems.

    If they believed Tyria was their right to own, they wouldn't care about borders, they'd try to drive the Norn from the shiverpeaks (as opposed to be completely fine with the Norn, and having an unspoken "We won't mess with you if you don't mess with us" agreement in EOTN), and actively attack all. But we never see that. We only see them go full war mode on humanity, and humanity alone

    "The Legions of the Charr threw off the shackles of religion, casting their Shamans down to the lowest order of Charr society, and elevating the military warbands into a solidified government. Although the legions have no central rule, they work together to maintain their territories in Ascalon, and make plans to one day spread farther—eradicating humans wherever they fester on the face of the world."

    The goal, at the time of post-EOTN after being free of flame legion, was to eradicate humanity. We clearly see that this goal is no longer around at all for most Charr.

    "While all four legions can claim lineage to the Khan-Ur, the ancient ruler of the Charr, the Gold Legion has been considered outcast since the fall of the Shaman caste during the time of the famous Charr heroine Kalla Scorchrazor. And yet, the Charr alliance remains strong enough that none of the three allied legions bars another from their capital. Even though the lands of the Charr are divided, the legions work together to unify the whole and finish their conquest—to the heart of Ascalon City and beyond."

    Funny, the conquest is started to be "The heart of Ascalon city, and beyond." not "All of tyria" And again, the Charr we have seen throughout the game, if they want to continue to war, it's against humanity, not all of Tyria.

    "Even after more than 200 years, the Charr still bristle at the memories of the time when the Shaman and the Titans held power over them. The Charr of today are fierce in their rejection of all gods and any who serve them. They do not accept any god's authority and are quick-tempered about any Charr worship or manipulation by godlike beings.

    And while no Charr would ever willingly follow the Shamans, it is still the underlying goal of every Charr leader to prove his own superiority, subjugate his fellows, and raise the banner of one legion above the rest. Unity, they say, can only be established beneath a single military leader. Most Charr believe that only under such rule can their race fulfill its destiny to rule all of Tyria. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the members of the other races), most Charr leaders also believe the only leader capable of unifying their race is themselves. "

    The Charr who believe they should rule all of Tyria, believe they can only do so under a Khan Ur. And no charr leader would accept another Charr as being said leader. Also, we've seen clearly that the Charr as of GW2 era don't really believe that goal, outside of ones like Bangar.

    Of Tyria's assembled nations the Legions have the must unsustainable, they've been the most unsustainable for awhile, and the center cannot hold.

    Funny, because Iron legion seems pretty sustainable. They got farming, agriculture, tech development, environmental clean up and restoration...

    Iron legion is also trading with other races, is the one leading peace efforts and changing the Charr's spot in the world. Ash is working with Iron, and Blood is being dragged along forcibly, though we already see in Grothmar they do have functional farming. While yes, what the legions were was unsustainable, again we've actively seen them change, see them advance. They are not warcraft orcs, they are growing and evolving.

©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.