That Ascalon/Charr thread, but properly articulated - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

That Ascalon/Charr thread, but properly articulated

2>

Comments

  • @anninke.7469 said:
    Where was it actually stated that the Charr have any kind of legitimate claim to Ascalon by anyone else than a Charr? Because it seems absolutely logical for Charr to insist on whatever ancestral "rights" they believe they have. I don't recall anyone relevant saying that the Charr are only victims of evil humans or anything like that. And of course Bangar would play on the victim note. It's easy and it works. However, I really can't remember a single thing that would make me believe there's anything more than "we were stronger so we're here now" to Charr presence in Ascalon, even though I didn't play GW1 (which seems to be what worries some posters).

    ANet did in 2012 with this. The Trivia part at the bottom, it even states they contradicted themselves with this.

    This came up years ago when GW2 launched. There's even an GW1 EotN map which shows the Charr homelands northeast of Ascalon. And a wiki entry here. When GW2 changed that, the explanation from some players was that that was simply human propaganda...

    It seems that even during EotN they hadn't thought of changing Ascalon to be Charr homelands yet. I'm guessing ANet thought of it in 2012 sometime to artificially give the Charr a more legitimate claim to land.

  • anninke.7469anninke.7469 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obsidian.1328 said:

    @anninke.7469 said:
    Where was it actually stated that the Charr have any kind of legitimate claim to Ascalon by anyone else than a Charr? Because it seems absolutely logical for Charr to insist on whatever ancestral "rights" they believe they have. I don't recall anyone relevant saying that the Charr are only victims of evil humans or anything like that. And of course Bangar would play on the victim note. It's easy and it works. However, I really can't remember a single thing that would make me believe there's anything more than "we were stronger so we're here now" to Charr presence in Ascalon, even though I didn't play GW1 (which seems to be what worries some posters).

    ANet did in 2012 with this. The Trivia part at the bottom, it even states they contradicted themselves with this.

    This came up years ago when GW2 launched. There's even an GW1 EotN map which shows the Charr homelands northeast of Ascalon. And a wiki entry here. When GW2 changed that, the explanation from some players was that that was simply human propaganda...

    It seems that even during EotN they hadn't thought of changing Ascalon to be Charr homelands yet. I'm guessing ANet thought of it in 2012 sometime to artificially give the Charr a more legitimate claim to land.

    Thank you.
    But while it sure is inconsistent, it's not really the kind of legitimate I had in mind. Like morally legitimate thus making the Charr victims of some kind of injustice. Meaning I still don't understand that percieved charr favouritism. Only their point of view was added, which is inevitably right the opposite from humans'.

    Do not fear difficulty. Hard ground makes sore feet.
    Act with wisdom and axe.

  • Obsidian.1328Obsidian.1328 Member ✭✭
    edited October 24, 2019

    @anninke.7469 said:

    @Obsidian.1328 said:

    @anninke.7469 said:
    Where was it actually stated that the Charr have any kind of legitimate claim to Ascalon by anyone else than a Charr? Because it seems absolutely logical for Charr to insist on whatever ancestral "rights" they believe they have. I don't recall anyone relevant saying that the Charr are only victims of evil humans or anything like that. And of course Bangar would play on the victim note. It's easy and it works. However, I really can't remember a single thing that would make me believe there's anything more than "we were stronger so we're here now" to Charr presence in Ascalon, even though I didn't play GW1 (which seems to be what worries some posters).

    ANet did in 2012 with this. The Trivia part at the bottom, it even states they contradicted themselves with this.

    This came up years ago when GW2 launched. There's even an GW1 EotN map which shows the Charr homelands northeast of Ascalon. And a wiki entry here. When GW2 changed that, the explanation from some players was that that was simply human propaganda...

    It seems that even during EotN they hadn't thought of changing Ascalon to be Charr homelands yet. I'm guessing ANet thought of it in 2012 sometime to artificially give the Charr a more legitimate claim to land.

    Thank you.
    But while it sure is inconsistent, it's not really the kind of legitimate I had in mind. Like morally legitimate thus making the Charr victims of some kind of injustice. Meaning I still don't understand that percieved charr favouritism. Only their point of view was added, which is inevitably right the opposite from humans'.

    Well...that reason is a lot more subjective.

    I still think the underlying cause for all of this was ANet's desire to whittle down the humans to one distinct culture: Krytan. Once that decision was made, they realized they couldn't just make human Ascalon vanish out of thin air...despite it being no where near the kingdom it used to be. And they do very much care about continuity. So they had to think of ways to slowly and carefully shift human Ascalon to Charr Ascalon. Adelbern's rage, Ascalon's ruin right after the war, and even having the game set 250 years later, all help them do this by providing practical reasons for human Ascalon's demise. The novel Ghosts of Ascalon is especially concerned with this topic, and should be seen as a foundational narrative for Ascalon's reimagining as Charr lands.

    Ebonhawke was really thrown in there as a nod to GW1 enthusiasts who have sentimental attachments to Ascalon, but I don't think ANet sees that small enclave as much of anything besides a thoughtful homage to something that is definitely not coming back. Ascalon is Charr lands now because that's what ANet wants it to be. Whether or not it's believable enough is sort of irrelevant at this point.

    As for any moral justification for the Charr being the proper rulers of Ascalon, there isn't really any in GW1 (although you do start to see it in EotN). But once ANet decided to make Ascalon the ancestral homeland of one of the Legions (I can't remember which one) in GW2, that's all you really need to do to legitimize that. There are very few things more justified than fighting for your home. The irony is that's what humans have been trying to do this whole time as well.

  • Kalavier.1097Kalavier.1097 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obsidian.1328 said:

    @anninke.7469 said:
    Where was it actually stated that the Charr have any kind of legitimate claim to Ascalon by anyone else than a Charr? Because it seems absolutely logical for Charr to insist on whatever ancestral "rights" they believe they have. I don't recall anyone relevant saying that the Charr are only victims of evil humans or anything like that. And of course Bangar would play on the victim note. It's easy and it works. However, I really can't remember a single thing that would make me believe there's anything more than "we were stronger so we're here now" to Charr presence in Ascalon, even though I didn't play GW1 (which seems to be what worries some posters).

    ANet did in 2012 with this. The Trivia part at the bottom, it even states they contradicted themselves with this.

    This came up years ago when GW2 launched. There's even an GW1 EotN map which shows the Charr homelands northeast of Ascalon. And a wiki entry here. When GW2 changed that, the explanation from some players was that that was simply human propaganda...

    It seems that even during EotN they hadn't thought of changing Ascalon to be Charr homelands yet. I'm guessing ANet thought of it in 2012 sometime to artificially give the Charr a more legitimate claim to land.

    I'll note a few things.

    A: The charr called Ascalon their hunting grounds, IIRC, and it's never referred to as their "homeland", but instead as Iron Legion's territory. I can't recall many comments about Ascalon being homeland to the Charr, just that it was the Charr's territory before humanity kicked them out and claimed it. In the split, it was Iron Legion's land, while Blood, Ash, and Flame had their own lands. I suppose that can be taken as "Iron Legion homeland" admittedly.

    B: GW1 Prophecies explicitly stated that humanity came, and took lands that DID NOT belong to them. Ascalon being part of that is perfectly reasonable.

  • Obsidian.1328Obsidian.1328 Member ✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Kalavier.1097 said:
    B: GW1 Prophecies explicitly stated that humanity came, and took lands that DID NOT belong to them. Ascalon being part of that is perfectly reasonable.

    Technically nothing on Tyria "belonged" to humans at all...they aren't even from the planet for crying out loud. Their coming to Tyria is wrapped up in the Six somehow. The whole point of them spreading across the land is to give them some background and explain how things got to be where they are now. They took lands from indigenous races because apparently their gods wanted them to establish roots here...who knows why? It's simply a fuzzy origin story, no writer ever really expanded on that. If you're going to blame Ascalons for stealing native lands thousands of years ago, then you might as blame all humans on the face of the planet in the same way.

  • @Kalavier.1097 said:
    A: The charr called Ascalon their hunting grounds, IIRC, and it's never referred to as their "homeland", but instead as Iron Legion's territory. I can't recall many comments about Ascalon being homeland to the Charr, just that it was the Charr's territory before humanity kicked them out and claimed it.

    Eh? It's in the cinematic if you create a Charr character. Many Charr NPC's refer to it as their "homeland", as does the very first heart NPC in the Plains of Ashford.

    "Remember The Searing."

  • cyst.3108cyst.3108 Member ✭✭

    You're forgetting something here... Ascalon was charr territory before it was human. so charr just wanted to get their territory back at all cost. at the end of the day, Char is the only tyrian race. Asuras were from underground until the fire/lava/ocean dragon, Norn were from somewhere else form the north before jormag, humans where fom cantha and elona, silvary god knows... and charr form tyria.

  • @Kalavier.1097 said:

    @Obsidian.1328 said:

    @anninke.7469 said:
    Where was it actually stated that the Charr have any kind of legitimate claim to Ascalon by anyone else than a Charr? Because it seems absolutely logical for Charr to insist on whatever ancestral "rights" they believe they have. I don't recall anyone relevant saying that the Charr are only victims of evil humans or anything like that. And of course Bangar would play on the victim note. It's easy and it works. However, I really can't remember a single thing that would make me believe there's anything more than "we were stronger so we're here now" to Charr presence in Ascalon, even though I didn't play GW1 (which seems to be what worries some posters).

    ANet did in 2012 with this. The Trivia part at the bottom, it even states they contradicted themselves with this.

    This came up years ago when GW2 launched. There's even an GW1 EotN map which shows the Charr homelands northeast of Ascalon. And a wiki entry here. When GW2 changed that, the explanation from some players was that that was simply human propaganda...

    It seems that even during EotN they hadn't thought of changing Ascalon to be Charr homelands yet. I'm guessing ANet thought of it in 2012 sometime to artificially give the Charr a more legitimate claim to land.

    I'll note a few things.

    A: The charr called Ascalon their hunting grounds, IIRC, and it's never referred to as their "homeland", but instead as Iron Legion's territory. I can't recall many comments about Ascalon being homeland to the Charr, just that it was the Charr's territory before humanity kicked them out and claimed it. In the split, it was Iron Legion's land, while Blood, Ash, and Flame had their own lands. I suppose that can be taken as "Iron Legion homeland" admittedly.

    B: GW1 Prophecies explicitly stated that humanity came, and took lands that DID NOT belong to them. Ascalon being part of that is perfectly reasonable.

    Both Ascalon and the lands north of it are called "homelands" by the charr, but in technicality, neither is where the charr originate. Charr originated east of the Blazeridge and invaded westward then south once hitting the Shiverpeaks.

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

©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.