Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


witcher.3197

Recommended Posts

@Rognik.2579 said:

@"witcher.3197" said:This is not Bangar being smart and manipulative, this is Anet trying to paint Ascalonians as villains and Charr as the victims, a VERY consistent theme since 2012.You're half right. Bangar is not being smart nor manipulative. He's expressing his true feelings about the matter, mostly to charr and one amorphous blob who could be anything from a Blood Legion soldier to an Ascalonian loyalist to an asura who couldn't care less either way. Bangar truly feels that the humans did the charr wrong, whether that's accurate or not. Considering by the end of the chapter he's depicted as the villain, I don't think he's meant to be sympathetic.

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@witcher.3197 said:Honetly saddened by the amount of Charr apologists in the GW2 community..

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

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

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

Okay... please tell me where anybody in here, at all said that the Charr are justified and perfectly Ok to have done what they did in GW1? Because nobody has, at all said that the Charr are perfect angels for what they did because the humans kicked them out of Ascalon.

Man, it's not like humanity has totally displaced the majority of known centaur tribes from their lands, in some cases totally enslaving them for manual labor. Or purposefully pushed out or wiped out entire clans of Tengu, banishing them from their ancestral homelands. Or upon arriving at the world spread out and conquered massive chunks of land from any native group. Or sat aside as government officials ran rampant with power and started slaughtering anybody slightly related to any member of criminal gangs, no matter how low ranking they were.

Humans did awful crud. Charr did awful crud. NEITHER SIDE IS RIGHT OR GOOD.

@witcher.3197 said:

@witcher.3197 said:This is not Bangar being smart and manipulative, this is Anet trying to paint Ascalonians as villains and Charr as the victims, a VERY consistent theme since 2012.You're half right. Bangar is not being smart nor manipulative. He's expressing his true feelings about the matter, mostly to charr and one amorphous blob who could be anything from a Blood Legion soldier to an Ascalonian loyalist to an asura who couldn't care less either way. Bangar truly feels that the humans did the charr wrong, whether that's accurate or not. Considering by the end of the chapter he's depicted as the villain, I don't think he's meant to be sympathetic.

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

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

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

Um, I'm not sure at all where you are getting these things from. Bangar has always been described as an individual who is all about the war and conflict, and was opposed to the treaty all the way. His reasoning for agreeing to it was literally "We can't afford to fight the Ash and Iron legion, plus humans, flame legion, and other possible foes." The thing this prologue showed us was that while Bangar is all about the war, he's intelligent and charismatic. He knows history pretty well and his hatred of other races is rooted in this knowledge of what has happened before.

The humans aren't even the cause of his extremism in this episode, AURENE IS. He's doing all this because the Pact (who he generally speaks of, and the treaty is worded as not only being a peace treaty, but a treaty to fight the elder dragons together), in a sense "Has an elder dragon". His reasoning/intelligence is misguided/badly informed (he thinks Aurene as a military asset/weapon/warbeast+ ranger pet, instead of a fully sapient creature who does whatever she wants to). His mindset is a "Charr, and everybody else." and the "Everybody else" has a dragon. He sees the balance as being tipped heavily against the Charr, and looking back at history he doesn't trust the other races, especially the humans, to not eventually act on that power inbalance to defeat the Charr, possibly for good. Bangar is not willing to even let that perceived threat stand for long, and wants to neutralize the advantage the other side has as quickly as possible. That's why he's "uniting" the legions again, and taking warbands from every legion that agree with his cause. He wants all the Charr to fear Aurene, to agree with him that they must act. While yes the commander isn't officially part of the Pact anymore, in general everybody views them (or Champion, as some call the PC now) as being a representative of the Pact.

Again, as a person who played all of GW1, and loves the lore of the universe of Guild wars, I don't see where you get this idea that Anet is sitting back and gleefully "ruining" Ascalon and guild wars 1.

Bangar is to the Charr, what the hardcore/separatist Ascalonians are to the humans. Stuck in the past and unwilling to forgiving ancient wrongdoings. They look at any shift in power as a possible problem, and seek to either keep things equal, or in their favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"ugrakarma.9416" said:the only possible "lore fault" is bangar age, is he really so old to account human/charr war at first hand?The peace treaty was only signed a year before the start of the game. So all charr would remember the human/charr war. Using charr pelts and horn in fashion, though, probably died out a century ago, so no one alive in Tyria (except maybe Livia) would remember it.

@"witcher.3197" said:I think he IS meant to be sympathetic to an extent. "Oh look, the evil humans caused such emotional scars in the Charr, they are being pushed towards extremism because they just can't cope! :'( " - that's what I got out of it.We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. There's a difference between "sympathetic" and "understandable" when it comes to motivations. Most of the replies here do not read it as sympathetic, so maybe you're reading something in his words or tone that I and the rest of us aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rognik.2579 said:

@"ugrakarma.9416" said:the only possible "lore fault" is bangar age, is he really so old to account human/charr war at first hand?The peace treaty was only signed a year before the start of the game. So all charr would remember the human/charr war. Using charr pelts and horn in fashion, though, probably died out a century ago, so no one alive in Tyria (except maybe Livia) would remember it.

Techincally, it was the cease-fire, with the treaty being signed during the game's run. And yeah, I didn't take Bangar's statement as being a first-hand account, especially considering that the one magazine/information drop said his hatred of other races was due to his knowledge of history and their interactions. It's less of a "I saw my dad turned into armor!" and probably more of a "Well, did you know humans used to do this stuff?"

@"witcher.3197" said:I think he IS meant to be sympathetic to an extent. "Oh look, the evil humans caused such emotional scars in the Charr, they are being pushed towards extremism because they just can't cope! :'( " - that's what I got out of it.We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. There's a difference between "sympathetic" and "understandable" when it comes to motivations. Most of the replies here do not read it as sympathetic, so maybe you're reading something in his words or tone that I and the rest of us aren't.

Yeah, I'm not sure where he's getting that at all. Or even calling the Charr having a victim complex.

The charr state it how it is. They were there, got kicked out by humans, and then returned and kicked out the humans. They don't use it to try to get sympathy or help from anybody as they don't need sympathy or help.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"witcher.3197" said:It's not like Ascalon is some divine right for the Charr to have. Humans held it longer then the Charr, deal with it.Charrs own it now, deal with it.

If the Charr could hold a grudge for 1000 years then conquer the land again, why would humans have to just concede it?Don't take it so personal. Ascalonian civilazation was reduced to Ebonhawk. I hope this tension between Humans and Charrs will not fade anytime soon, it adds charisma and purpose to the story and I hope Human players will feed that grudge for as long as GW exists.

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

I don't see a victim complex here, but I do see war propaganda, manipulation of masses to feed the hatred towards humans again. Bangar wants the Charr to despise Humans, and Humans to hate Charrs. If it affected you, he's certainly a good manipulator, touching right where it hurts.

I like how charrs are a sort of anti-heros, pragmatic to the bones and not the usual white knights of lost causes. Charrs will play dirt if it gives'em the upper hand and that's the beauty of it.

TLDR: There's no "victim complex", only war propaganda. Humans are b***hurt and rightfully so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"witcher.3197" said:It's not like Ascalon is some divine right for the Charr to have. Humans held it longer then the Charr, deal with it.

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

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

That's not the full story, though. It's not like they just pulled back and twiddled their thumbs for a millennia. During their 1000-year civil warring, the charr were constantly being pushed back further and further away from Ascalon and the humans were building settlements into charr territory even further north from the wall they took 900 years to build to keep the charr out. If nothing else, because of the continued pushing for territory that humanity was taking from the charr, it's only natural that a brutish, warring race like theirs would hold a continued grudge because of constant strife and would eventually fight back.

At this point in time, the charr are finally beginning to grow as a race as move out of their "primitive" ways, as seen by the fact that the Iron Legion is attempting to revitalize the land that a couple centuries ago the Flame Legion left burnt to a crisp.

It's a deep seated hatred from both sides, and both are at fault for various reasons. Not so cut and dry as you're trying to paint it as.

Edit: And I don't feel like they're painting them as the victims. That's not how it felt to me when I was playing through Bound by Blood, even as a primarily charr player myself. Maybe Bangar was trying to drum up sympathy, but it was coming from a place of hatred and possibly fear and he was doing things any warmonger does. There's a reason there are still both separatists and renegades, and a history that's full of war for well over a thousand years means that the animosity is going to run very strong for a few centuries yet. Stories of war crimes would circulate on both sides, but there are charr who are actively trying to strive for peace now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@witcher.3197 said:

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

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

I never said that it's a divine right. I said, "What's the difference between saying it's okay for humans to drive the Charr totally out of Ascalon in the name of 'reclamation', and saying that it's okay for the Charr to drive the humans out of Ascalon in the name of 'reclamation'." Just because one side did horrific things (at one point) doesn't make it okay to return the same level of death and destruction.

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

Maybe because the vast majority of the humans who lived there, are dead. There are two ministers in DR who represent this aspect fully. One is pushing for more military presence in Ebonhawke and fighting the Charr to push them out of Ascalon. The other replies with "The searing is ancient history, get over it." If anything, I'd probably describe Ascalonian's as more victims them Charr lol.

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

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

Not once has Anet painted the Charr as victims, ingame or out of game. They added some Charr perspective on historical events, but that's it. Infact, a lot of times the Charr of GW1 era are still painted as criminals/awful people, even by the Charr. Charr of the modern era don't have slaves, ritual sacrifices, or even eat humans or other Sapient races. Some are praised, but some are also treated as bad individuals.

Nor are the people of Ascalon, outside of the mad king Adelbern (who was already painted as explicitly insane in GW1), and the Separatists (who are willing to murder their fellow countrymen) painted as the villains. I'd describe them as being shown to be survivors, holding the line against the Charr successfully for 200+ years without any real breaches of their defensive line, and for the most part being totally cut off from Krytan aid, at least for good chunks of time.

The problem with your argument is that you are acting as if the Charr of the three legions (ash, blood, iron) are the same culturally, as the Charr from GW1. This is factually untrue.

@GenericDragon.8126 said:

@witcher.3197 said:It's not like Ascalon is some divine right for the Charr to have. Humans held it longer then the Charr, deal with it.

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

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

That's not the full story, though. It's not like they just pulled back and twiddled their thumbs for a millennia. During their 1000-year civil warring, the charr were constantly being pushed back further and further away from Ascalon and the humans were building settlements into charr territory even further north from the wall they took 900 years to build to keep the charr out. If nothing else, because of the continued pushing for territory that humanity was taking from the charr, it's only natural that a brutish, warring race like theirs would hold a continued grudge because of constant strife and would eventually fight back.

Let's not forget how the Khan-ur was mysteriously and suddenly assassinated, with no trace or clue as to who did it, during the period of human expansion.

At this point in time, the charr are finally beginning to grow as a race as move out of their "primitive" ways, as seen by the fact that the Iron Legion is attempting to revitalize the land that a couple centuries ago the Flame Legion left burnt to a crisp.

Ah, but some people just want Charr to forever be furry warcraft Orcs, and hate the idea of a charr growing out of their evil, destructive history into somebody better, something new. Like the Flame Legion leader says in Bound by Blood, "Efram Greetsglory: I hope. Took years - centuries, actually. But here we are. Those of us who want peace." and "Efram Greetsglory: No need. It's a new world: she's still finding her place in it, So are we." While this applies to Flame Legion, in a broader sense it describes the Charr. Iron Legion has pushed for peace with humanity (they did so once, long ago, but pirates raided the peace offering of Ascalon relics), and then harder in the period just before the game, when Jennah worked with them.

It's a deep seated hatred from both sides, and both are at fault for various reasons. Not so cut and dry as you're trying to paint it as.

Indeed, these ancient wounds and grudges are just now slowly starting to heal. We see iron legion soldiers pissed at humans being assaulted at the rally. We see blood legion looking at older charr and shrugging at the idea of "their ancestors being ashamed at them." because the treaty ended the war. But you have players who refuse to accept any sort of implication of the Charr being anything but drooling, violent beasts.

Edit: And I don't feel like they're painting them as the victims. That's not how it felt to me when I was playing through Bound by Blood, even as a primarily charr player myself. Maybe Bangar was trying to drum up sympathy, but it was coming from a place of hatred and possibly fear and he was doing things any warmonger does. There's a reason there are still both separatists and renegades, and a history that's full of war for well over a thousand years means that the animosity is going to run very strong for a few centuries yet. Stories of war crimes would circulate on both sides, but there are charr who are actively trying to strive for peace now.

Nothing about guild wars 2 story has painted the Charr as victims. I find it hard to view a race who stands up and directly says "We got kicked out, came back and kicked the people who forced us away out. We won." as being a race with a victim complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***SPOILERS BELOW**

Interesting topic.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Regh.8649 said:

@"witcher.3197" said:It's not like Ascalon is some divine right for the Charr to have. Humans held it longer then the Charr, deal with it.Charrs own it now, deal with it.

If the Charr could hold a grudge for 1000 years then conquer the land again, why would humans have to just concede it?Don't take it so personal. Ascalonian civilazation was reduced to Ebonhawk. I hope this tension between Humans and Charrs will not fade anytime soon, it adds charisma and purpose to the story and I hope Human players will feed that grudge for as long as GW exists.

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

I don't see a victim complex here, but I do see war propaganda, manipulation of masses to feed the hatred towards humans again. Bangar wants the Charr to despise Humans, and Humans to hate Charrs. If it affected you, he's certainly a good manipulator, touching right where it hurts.

I like how charrs are a sort of anti-heros, pragmatic to the bones and not the usual white knights of lost causes. Charrs will play dirt if it gives'em the upper hand and that's the beauty of it.

TLDR: There's no "victim complex", only war propaganda. Humans are b***hurt and rightfully so.

Naw, the Charr if anything always came off as more personally aggrieved by their failure to take Ebonhawke then humanity ever did, it's just unlike Witches I think the Charr victim complex is a product of good storytelling. Yes Bangar and his subordinates act like functional manchildren, but what member of a Fascist empire does not? The Charr dream of a united world under their banner died fighting the Ascalonians for the Fields of Ruin. The loss of territory and prestige revealed core vulnerabilities in how the Charr operate, the so-called best warriors on Tyria were unable to overcome some skilled gurrelia fighters without the Searing Cauldrons to win the war for them.

It's something i'v seen from both Charr players and the NPCs, this notion that the Charr were some kind of badass anti-heroes who totally beat up humanity when in really they barely managed to turn the tide of a thousand year losing streak by harnessing demonic powers. Without those same powers they completely stalled in their ability to wipe humanity off the map and just floundered outside the gates of Ebonhawke for a hundred years before getting themselves branded in the Ogre revolt.

Now that Kralks dead Bangars desperate to regain that prestige, to claw back the 'glory days' of Charr supremacy, and in doing so he dispels the myth of Charr pragmatism. He reveals a deep rooted insanity and distaste for the status quo, an inability to accept forces that are bigger then himself that lies at the heart of Charr culture. Why wouldn't he? The Charr have no spirituality, they 'killed their gods' as they like to keep telling themselves, they see cosmic forces as nothing but something to conquer and dominate. This is because to the Charr, to the 'realists' devoid of any ability to accept a lack of control, they have to rattle the cage of fate when it doesn't fit their tune of what the future should be.

Bangar blames the humans for skinning his people, he denigrates the other races as weak and feeble, he shouts over the loudspeakers that it's Charr above all like a certain dictator because he realizes the Charr are on a decline. He sees a weakness in them, in the Charr starting to accept other ideas and cultures, perhaps even starting to believe those ideas and cultures are better then the Charr way of doing things. In his minds eye the races of Tyria are talking his people out of existence and he's unable to cope with the notion. So he plays the victim card, he tells his people the other races will fight and kil them out of pure distrust whether that makes any sense or not, he bunkers down and puts the propaganda machine into full swing and list out a host of atrocities committed against the Charr without examining why that violence was visited upon them in the first place.

Eventually he packs up and goes north, renegades in tow,. That speech he gives at the end? Yes it's chilling, yes it's borderline Triumph of the Will tier propaganda, but it also sounds like a man whose desperate for some kind of validation, just like his confrontation with Rytlock. He wanted it to happen, he made it happen, so that's how this plays out.

I don't hate Bangar, I pity him, and I think that kind of complex feeling is the mark of a good antagonist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

To be clear:

  • In this Season, we have the charr, perspective as it is seen in their homeland. It is heavily implied to be part of the official propaganda, and as such is perfectly fine.
  • The fact that the various foreigners do not object is also find; after all they are here as kind of ambassadors. Slowly polishing angles and not being too aggressive is their role (also they probably don't want to be gutted on the spot).
  • The problem is in the other part of the world, where the human centric view should be predominant (better documented, cross checked, closer to the fact, with physical and episcopal evidence, backed by administrative records...).
  • Also, charr fighting ghost understand that they fight mainly against civilians fueled by desesperation. They leave on a daily basis with the consequence of the searing and should have first hand experience of how twisted their version of history is. This is never acknowledged.
  • Saying that Ascalon was Charr territory thousand(s) years ago is like saying that the Mediterranean world was Roman a thousand years ago. That wouldn't justify Italian going all out on a conquest war, nuking whole country, enslaving and eating the survivors, replacing baguettes by pizzas and engaging in ethnical cleansing of everything non Italian.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Adiabatik.6714" said:I understand that ANet wants to go for the "their is multiple sides for every story" kind of thing.But if it is the case, where do we ever hear of the other sides? Each time this is mentioned, we never ever hear of any other alternate interpretation of history than the Charr version.There is at most musing of wether human leaders were cartoonishly evil, totally wrong, crazy, delusional or a mix of all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You realize the human/charr war only ended 7 years prior to Bound by Blood, and one year prior to the personal story.

Every player character (except sylvari) are old enough to recount first hand stories of the human/charr war.

@"witcher.3197" said:Honetly saddened by the amount of Charr apologists in the GW2 community..

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

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

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

So you just contradicted yourself from the OP with what I put in bolded.

Also, I don't think there are any charr apologists in this thread. You either got the charr haters who see them as nothing but pitch black and proclaiming anything less to be apologists (e.g., yourself), or you have those who are stating that both humans and charr were committing war crimes across the field. And the later is accurate.

I also wouldn't consider the Searing to be "the worst war crime in the known lore" either. Doesn't feel worse than eternally cursing your own nation to fight forever without rest. Probably on par to blowing up your own nation. Potentially worse than skinning your enemies and using their body parts as armor decorations.Certainly worse than demanding the return of land you owned for maybe 30 years after 1,000 years of not owning it.

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

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

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

He's not meant to be sympathetic. He's meant to be understandable and realistic. There's an ocean of difference.

@"witcher.3197" said:It's not like Ascalon is some divine right for the Charr to have. Humans held it longer then the Charr, deal with it.

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

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

Ascalon isn't some divine right for humans either. Charr own it now, so "deal with it" can be said either way. Charr were fighting humans more because they're a warmongering race. They merely used the "taking back what's ours" as an excuse, one that has been indoctrinated into their society. This isn't victimizing the charr or the like, it's closer to what Joko did to Vabbi but to a lesser extreme - imbeddening an idea into a core part of a culture.

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."

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."

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.

(Also, I'd argue the Kurzick-Luxon war had greater atrocities than the charr-Ascalon war, magical cataclysmic events aside).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is also the problem that the charr of the time weren't specially scholars or keepers of knowledge. On the contrary, there is many indications that they were on a constant streak of "cultural reformation", dark ages, book burning and "forbidden knowledge should be destroyed" movements.I never got this view of "dark ages" and "book burning" or "knowledge should be destroyed". I mean, yes, there's very clear cases of propaganda rewriting of history, but these are fairly minor ("humans killed some of our gods first, but we finished them off" -> "we killed our gods") but no indication of large scale removal (or rewrite) of history.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Also, charr fighting ghost understand that they fight mainly against civilians fueled by desesperation. They leave on a daily basis with the consequence of the searing and should have first hand experience of how twisted their version of history is. This is never acknowledged.You're expecting rational from a warmongering race. They do not view Adelbern's curse to be excplitily a "this is our fault" but they blame the person who committed the curse, Adelbern, who is accepted as having been insane by all parties involved. Including non-Foefire ghosts, like Savione, who firsthand witnessed Adelbern's descent into madness.

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are telling the Charr perspective, and i like it. Have we as humans not killed endless hordes of Charr also (in gw1)? There has already been too much human perspective in earlier story. So the Charr (and Norn) side of the story is a welcome new chapter. They see Ascalon territory as their homelands, so humans are occuping it from their perspective. We are not playing my little pony online btw. This is supposed to be serious might and magic fantasy, not human flufwars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 would say that is how charr see it. Because it is how charr see it. Rytlock is explaining the history of the place exactly as he knew it. And this is seen in almost every character introduction - sylvari introduction says "Twenty-five years ago, my people first appeared in Tyria. The Pale Tree flowered, and the firstborn awakened." , but guess what, it was 23 years ago. The asura introduction, the PC states "Of course, we've excelled. We exceed expectations in everything we do." But is that true? Hell no, asura inventions mess up all the damn time.

This is even shown in the racial cities. For a major example, there's Thrulnn the Lost, who appears in Hoelbrak. If you talk to him, he will claim that the Six Human Gods took magic from the jotun and this caused the jotun's (and norn's) decline from greatness. This is a blatant lie, as we learn in the norn PS via Elder Thruln as well as dialogue throughout Dredgehaunt Cliffs and Arah explorable - it wasn't the loss of magic that made jotun fall via infighting, but their own greed causing infighting that resulted in their fall, and magic wasn't taken by the Six Gods but by the Seers.

It's called Unreliable Narrator and ArenaNet uses this literary technique religiously. It is used so frequently that I wouldn't doubt that ArenaNet requires all new employees to read up on it, especially if they touch dialogue.

They introduce unreliable narrator early on to players so as to establish the fact that not everything stated, even by the PC, is going to be truth. And you've fallen victim to not learning this lesson.

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

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.

Most people disagreeing with you in this thread are GW1 vets. Myself included. I've been playing GW1 since June 2006, and active in the lore community since late 2006.

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.

The latest time? Bound by Blood. Seriously, it's part of the fucking main story:

Rytlock Brimstone: Commander, a word? Just stopped some charr from roughing up one of Almorra's Vigil.Rytlock Brimstone: You can feel the violence in the air. Storm's gathering. Need to talk to Crecia and Bangar before things get too out of handRytlock Brimstone: Meet me at Bangar's office. Probably better if it comes from the both of us.

General Almorra Soulkeeper: They would have killed him if Brimstone hadn't stepped in!Bangar Ruinbringer: Humans. So fragile. Sometimes we forgetGeneral Almorra Soulkeeper: You have a problem with my people? Take it up with me, you don't send your thugs to rough 'em up!https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bad_Blood_(Bound_by_Blood)

Worker: What're you doing here, little rat?Merchant: I am a merchant, thank you. And I am unloading my wares to sell. Obviously.Worker: Yeah, well you're taking up space that a charr vendor could've used.Merchant: I was invited to this congregation.Worker: Shoulda reconsidered. Your stuff and your kind aren't real safe around here.https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Upper_Blood_Keep#Ambient_dialogue

It's outright stated, and even shown, that the charr are being very hostile to humans and asura in Grothmar Wardowns. Hell, there's even dialogue with a Durmand Priory scholar and Blood charr about the name for the human-charr conflict:

Blood Legion Soldier: How would you know? You're no battle historian.Priory Observer: Actually, my dissertation on the War of Ascalon Independence was published to great critical acclaim in academic circles.Blood Legion Soldier: You mean the "Ascalon Insurrection."Priory Observer: No I mean—Blood Legion Soldier: (growl)Priory Observer: Yes, yes! You're absolutely right. The Ascalon Insurrection...that's what I meant.https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Upper_Blood_Keep#Ambient_dialogue

"War of Ascalon Independence" is the human term of the conflict, while "Ascalon Insurrection" is the charr term. And the Durmand Priory, a multiracial order, uses the human term. And rather than letting it slide as a "good guy" would, the Blood Legion Soldier intimidates the scholar into using their term.

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.

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

The charr weren't falling apart, they were becoming stretched thin, and this was a very recent development caused by Kralkatorrik's awakening. The Iron Legion had been wanting to get a peace treaty worked out for over a century (as brought up in Sea of Sorrows), simply because they were in a position of power and could without any real losses. Malice and Smodur wanted to relieve stress on their people, and wanted to end an ancient war. Bangar didn't want to end the war, he only conceded because he knew not agreeing meant fighting the existing enemies (which recently increased by one - branded) as well as both Iron and Ash, and knew that was a battle he couldn't win. But Blood+Iron+Ash weren't falling apart or at risk of losing. They were just stuck in perpetual stalemate.

Humans are conceding because Anet wants Charr to be playable.

Charr could be playable without conceding.

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 see what ArenaNet is doing. And that's establishing both views of the story.

You're failing to see when humans bring up their side of the story, because you're so focused on charr dialogue, as opposed to human dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:You're failing to see when humans bring up their side of the story, because you're so focused on charr dialogue, as opposed to human dialogue.I'm starting to believe (in a joking manner) that witcher is a member of the White Mantle from how much he's going off the handle about the supposed "anti-human" sentiment he keeps seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...