That Ascalon/Charr thread, but properly articulated

[witcher.3197]

So I never expected the other thread to blow up so much, letalone be misinterpreted so hard on reddit and twitch. I just wanted to rant a bit and vent my frustration with a particular part of how the story is being told - or rather, how it isn't.

I'd like to give it another go, but this time provide proper feedback instead of ranting.

TL;DR The human-Charr conflict is a rich and perfect setting for people to get invested in different sides and could be the best place for telling a gray story in GW2. Unfortunately I don't think Anet's doing a good job at exposing the playerbase to both sides of the conflict in GW2, instead we are being spoonfed the Charr narrative endlessly and the whole thing comes off as too black and white. Not only that, but instead of building on what was set up in GW1, GW2's narrative works to undo and invalidate its predecessor.

The shift in narrative

It's pretty clear that Charr were never supposed to be likeable at the time of GW1. They were some of the earliest and most ruthless villains of the story with absolutely no redeeming qualities, and many players got invested in the Ascalonian side. When Anet decided to make Charr playable in GW2 they felt it necessary to change how the playerbase viewed the Charr. Thus began the problems.

How NOT to tell a gray story

So Anet took a conflict that was perhaps the most black and white in the entire lore, and seemingly tried to turn it into a more "gray" one. But the way they did it was the following: they painted it just as black and white as it was in GW1, except switched which side is supposed to be in the right which only alienated some of the established fanbase.

When such a story is told right, both sides have valid points and the audience is split on the matter in a good way, allowing people to get attached to either of the sides and make arguements for their favorite.

Problem with GW2 is that Anet is trying to heavily overcompensate for how evil the Charr were in GW1. They are basically giving them amnesty for the Searing, genocides, child slavery, burning women alive, eating prisoners / forcing them to fight to the death for entertainment, and more. They even get to be vindicated for their whole conquest of Ascalon by the "we just wanted to take our land back" narrative which Anet wasted no time hammering home before GW2 even released. They shoehorned this into the cinematic of their very first dungeon and released it before the game even came out.

It's a very consistent theme since before release to paint the Charr as the victims of humanity. First, this goes against everything that was set up in GW1, creating a rift between the narrative and communities of the two games. Second, I think it doesn't even do justice to the Charr because it makes them appear way more tame, heavily downplaying their warmongering nature which is supposed to be their cornerstone as a race. Since when do Charr need a valid reason to go to war?

Meanwhile Ascalonians get reduced from tragic victims of a brutal invasion, to mindless villains for the most part.

What I'm trying to say is that this "conflict" is way too onesided in GW2. Charr are never held accountable for their sins, and Ascalonians are expected to just roll with it - because those who don't are portrayed as evil and get killed off.

"But that's just the Charr's propaganda, not Anet's official stance!"

I keep hearing that GW1 was human centric so GW2 merely gave us the Charr's (biased) perspective and we are supposed to take it with a grain of salt. Problem is, not everyone played GW1. New players - and especially the more casual ones who started off with GW2 - never ever get exposed to the atrocities of the Charr, and the Charr POV never gets challenged even for a second.

If you want to sell a gray story, then tell the story from both sides IN ONE GAME. That way fans of neither side feel betrayed by the narrative.

Each side telling biased half-truths could be a great narrative tool IF we spent time exploring both sides, but that's not happening at all. Those who started with GW2 never really get exposed to anything but the Charr side, the Charr truth. Since their story is never challenged, it becomes THE truth. Players shouldn't have to go back and play a 14 year old game if they wanted to get the full picture, but without doing so the story becomes much more bland and black and white.

Bangar and the Charr victim complex

I'm glad that we are getting a character like Bangar. He represents what Charr should be: warminded, constantly on edge, seeing enemies everywhere - yet intelligent, calculating, and even rational in his own way. Truly a hero of his own story and we need more characters like him.

The line that set me off however was him complaining about how "Ascalonians used to wear our fur as armor". Don't get me wrong, it's in character for him to say such things!

Again, my problem is that this is just yet another continuation of the Charr victim narrative that's been going on for 7 years, completely undisputed. GW2 players aren't going to know the circumstances, they won't know that this happened after the Charr commited genocide against 3 human kingdoms. They lack context.

Anet's painting a completely distorted view of the whole conflict to those who never played GW1. They aren't creating a divide between people who agree with humans and those who agree with the Charr (which would be good storytelling), rather a rift between those who played GW1 and those who didn't.

Retcons

This is from the original manuscript for GW: Prophecies.

Once, Ascalon was a beautiful, fertile land of rolling green countryside and magnificent cities. Her people were viewed as grim by their neighbors. This was perhaps, to be expected, given their never-ending war against the aggressive Charr. Indeed, it was their unfailing vigilance, their Great Northern Wall, and the blood they shed each year to defend it that had protected not only Ascalon, but also Kryta and Orr through the ages.

This was the original story. The whole "we just came to take back our land" is a GW2 retcon that Anet wasted no time to spoonfeed it to new players over the years. Most people today use this reasoning to justify basically everything the Charr ever did. Anet took one of the best and most iconic conflicts of GW1, decided they want none of it in GW2, and then made the aggressors seem like the good guys in the sequel with no room for debate. I think that was a huge mistake and a waste of potential for great tensions.

This excuse doesn't even hold up, because events unfolded exactly as the manuscript said they would: Charr invading the other human kingdoms the moment the wall was breached. What happened to the "we are just here to take it back" narrative? Are we supposed to believe that Kryta and Orr were also originally Charr land?

Because of all the retcons GW2 doesn't really expand on the story told in GW1, rather tries to replace it. Again this creates a situation where, instead of the GW2 playerbase being divided on the human-Charr conflict in a good way, the true divide lies between GW1 and GW2 players. I think that's bad storytelling.

If the intent was to flip the narrative on its head, drag Ascalon through the mud and justify the Charr's genocides and whatnot, alienating a large chunk of the former playerbase then I guess it's a success. If however the intent was to provide a gray story, then they've failed, but maybe it's not too late to salvage the situation and this saga is the perfect opportunity for that.

[Thornwolf.9721]

I agree the charr have been changed and sometimes not fully for the better, If they wanted to tell more of a grey story they could of talked about the relationship between the norn and the charr. They had conflicts but the charr typically never tried to antagonize the norn for fear of what the norn would do to them in retaliation. Ascalon was a beautiful place and honestly I wish they had offered us different perspectives of the conflict, blood would see it as justified. While ash and Iron saw it more as "It happened, it sucks but there is little we could do now about it."

They could of allowed it to be that iron legion was allowing the humans to build the wall back to glory, and make a "New ascalon" but with charr being there to help them remake and retake their homeland. A sign of good will and in return within divinities reach a charr area would be built for charr to live among the humans, teach them how to make guns and weapons and to help in their war against the centaur. Then you could have Ash collecting data on the humans and maybe even working with the shining blade to help snuff our the separatists. With them finding out around this point that Bangar was the one who was fueling them this whole time, because blood legion or at least the main part of blood legion under him didn't agree with this at all. With rytlock and the pc being in blood-legion and being so far from them and being alongside smodur and helping iron legion they would have a different perspective.

Bangar reignites the human vs charr tension but a lot on both sides refuse to fight each other because despite their differences they see one another as friends now. Perhaps even blossoming relationships begun to take place (Why not.) So when the time comes and tensions rise the Charr and humans band together, against bangar and his plot and turn to show bloodlegion that you can co-exist. I feel like rebuilding Ascalon would be fitting, I feel like building the beauty that was near to where it was and rebuilding the wall would be a wonderful way to aleviate your issues with the plot. Because then it would feel like the charr took responsibility and realized what they had done was wrong and didn't need to happen, this would probably alleviate tensions between the races as well.

[Rognik.2579]

First off, full disclosure, I didn't fully read the opening post, but I read the previous thread and just enough of this one to get a sense of the argument.

@"witcher.3197" said:When Anet decided to make Charr playable in GW2 they felt it necessary to change how the playerbase viewed the Charr. Thus began the problems.I disagree. I feel that making the charr playable, and thus showing their side of the dispute, makes them more real instead of these snarling beasts that were just cannon-fodder in GW1. More on this later.

So Anet took a conflict that was perhaps the most black and white in the entire lore, and seemingly tried to turn it into a more "gray" one. But the way they did it was the following: they painted it just as black and white as it was in GW1, except switched which side is supposed to be in the right which only alienated some of the established fanbase.I disagree on it being a black-and-white issue. Yes, humans built a wall and charr constantly invaded. They destroyed Ascalon and killing lost of people in the Searing. Ascalon lost. Rurik was depicted as being in the right for leading his people across the Shiverpeaks to Kryta, while Adelbern was wrong for wanting to stay and fight for his homeland, even as decrepit and inhospitable as it was post-Searing. The Ascalonians who stayed in Ascalon? They were never depicted as being in the right. To make matters worse, Rurik was killed during the trek, while Adelbern lived years after his son's death until he could cause the Cataclysm that killed any real Ascalonians still in the area.

Now, if I had been writing the story, I would've left it there. The charr won, and humanity lost. They held Ascalon as the spoils of war, not some ancient heritage site. As a concession in the peace talks, Jennah would've offered the charr to keep Ascalon so long as they proceeded no further into human lands. All the other problems would still be there: Flame Legion kicked out centuries ago, Kralkatorrik awaking, and even the ghosts of the Cataclysm. They just needed one less front to fight against. This works out in the humans favour, too, except for the Ascalonians who want to keep their home. Honestly, I think it would have been more interesting having to make a deal with the enemy, and having this teeth-clenched partnership without the historical justification.

It's a very consistent theme since before release to paint the Charr as the victims of humanity. First, this goes against everything that was set up in GW1, creating a rift between the narrative and communities of the two games. Second, I think it doesn't even do justice to the Charr because it makes them appear way more tame, heavily downplaying their warmongering nature which is supposed to be their cornerstone as a race. Since when do Charr need a valid reason to go to war?The war between charr and humans has been going on for at least a thousand years. After a while, both sides are going to get tired, especially if resources are dwindling. The charr weren't exactly losing, but they had stopped gaining ground. The humans had only been losing ground until retreating behind Ebonhawke's walls, and any gains made were minor or temporary.Meanwhile Ascalonians get reduced from tragic victims of a brutal invasion, to mindless villains for the most part.Not all Ascalonians. Just the Separatists. The situation sort of reminds me of how Quebec wants to separate from the rest of Canada, where the French would be the Ascalonians and the English would be the charr (only because the English won and the French resent it). Some francophone (French speakers) really want to separate to become a sovereign nation, but many others have accepted being part of Canada. That's as far as parallels go, though, because there is no Renegade faction equivalent, where the English still want to wipe out the French - to my knowledge, at least.What I'm trying to say is that this "conflict" is way too onesided in GW2. Charr are never held accountable for their sins, and Ascalonians are expected to just roll with it - because those who don't are portrayed as evil and get killed off.Now this is a bit of an interesting point. In my opinion, the problem is that the Separatist faction is going about trying to reclaim their homeland the wrong way. What if there were a peaceful leader (in, say, southern Ebonhawke or some minister in DR) who wanted some way to reclaim Ascalon without necessarily throwing the charr out? Even if he were depicted as a villain, it would be a problem you couldn't just kill for political reasons, and someone more clever than Caudecus ended up being in Season 3. I liked Caudecus, insofar as he was a rival to Jennah but no evidence tied back to him. It would have been nice if we could have kept him as a nebulous villain, constantly sabotaging actions but always having underlings take the credit until he had to reveal himself as the head of the White Mantle. Alas, Season 3 wrapped up the mursaat plotline, and restoring Lazarus was what prompted Caudecus to outright show his true allegiance (not that everyone didn't know it already)."But that's just the Charr's propaganda, not Anet's official stance!"I'm just going to summarize this section without going point by point.

1. Yes, GW2 is overcorrecting the news, giving the charr perspective far more than the humans. However, most Krytan humans don't care about the situation in Ascalon beyond "charr aren't killing us any more". Ascalonian humans can be in two camps: those who accept/respect the ceasefire/treaty/truce, and the Separatists who refuse to let the charr win.
2. While the situation may be a bit gray, the staff isn't trying to tell a gray story.
3. As much as I hate to admit it, the staff is just not equipped to these smaller ongoing stories and the main narrative at the same time. Only now are we getting to charr outside of the Iron Legion, and finally norn are getting some focus since launch. Sylvari haven't had any story arcs since Heart of Thorns (which might be another overcorrection after HoT made it feel like the game was The Sylvari Show). And the asura, while always present as the brains, haven't had much story focus as a race. Does the Inquest base in Season 4, Episode 2 count? What about the Arcane Eye and their cover-up of dragons eating magic? Maybe for the eventual Primordus arc.
4. I'm pretty sure the information that Ascalon used to be a human nation is in the game. As far as I'm concerned, that's all the perspective humans need. Maybe if the charr make it stronger that humans held the land for (at least) a thousand years while The Great Northern Wall kept the charr from truly invading, it would be better. The humans don't have some ancestor claim, and the charr claim, while more ancient, feels less valid if we consider all of the Blood Legion lands we're now seeing with Grothmar Valley.The line that set me off however was him complaining about how "Ascalonians used to wear our fur as armor". ... Again, my problem is that this is just yet another continuation of the Charr victim narrative that's been going on for 7 years, completely undisputed. GW2 players aren't going to know the circumstances, they won't know that this happened after the Charr commited genocide against 3 human kingdoms. They lack context.And that justifies it? If the shoe were on the other foot, and the charr were wearing human skin turned into leather armour, would that be justified since they were trophies from a 1000 year war? Using the body parts of a sentient race is horrifying, no matter which side does it. And don't say the charr weren't intelligent during the initial story. Any group that can perform a ritual to make fire rain from the sky should be considered sentient. Even the grawl could do that much.They aren't creating a divide between people who agree with humans and those who agree with the Charr (which would be good storytelling), rather a rift between those who played GW1 and those who didn't.I played GW1. I kind of disprove your argument there.The whole "we just came to take back our land" is a GW2 retcon that Anet wasted no time to spoonfeed it to new players over the years. Most people today use this reasoning to justify basically everything the Charr ever did. Anet took one of the best and most iconic conflicts of GW1, decided they want none of it in GW2, and then made the aggressors seem like the good guys in the sequel with no room for debate. I think that was a huge mistake and a waste of potential for great tensions.ArenaNet decided they didn't want open world PvP, as World of Warcraft popularized a couple years before. All PC players are working on the same side, and as such, they have to somewhat resolve the Ascalon situation so that the charr and humans don't want to kill each other on sight. For the record, I try not to mention the charr ancestral homeland fact in any argument for or against, except like now when I'm directly addressing said issue.This excuse doesn't even hold up, because events unfolded exactly as the manuscript said they would: Charr invading the other human kingdoms the moment the wall was breached. What happened to the "we are just here to take it back" narrative? Are we supposed to believe that Kryta and Orr were also originally Charr land?Maybe? Perhaps this is another lie the charr tell themselves to feel better that these human "mice" were able to hold them back for so long, first at the Great Northern Wall and then later at Ebonhawke. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Orr sank before a charr could even set foot on their land.Because of all the retcons GW2 doesn't really expand on the story told in GW1, rather tries to replace it. Again this creates a situation where, instead of the GW2 playerbase being divided on the human-Charr conflict in a good way, the true divide lies between GW1 and GW2 players. I think that's bad storytelling.Sequels usually overwrite the original work at least partially, the "happy ending" at the very least. The story is still expanded, even if the spin has gone 179 degrees around. You don't like the direction the new story is pointed, and I at the very least tolerate it.

I do agree on one front: the Icebrood Saga is a perfect chance to reframe the entire Ascalon situation, especially if there's an Ascalonian loyalist (slightly different from a Separatist) waiting to tell his/her side of the story. I hardly would call the charr the good guys, even now, but they are a lot less bad than they were back circa 1000 AE. People change, even if they have sharp teeth, fur and 2 sets of ears.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

@Rognik.2579 said:Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Orr sank before a charr could even set foot on their land.

They made it into Orr, supposedly as far as the gates of Arah- we even got a glimpse of the invasion in the fractal section of Jahai Bluffs- but the kingdom sank before they could breach the holy city.

[starhunter.6015]

@Aaron Ansari.1604 said:

@Rognik.2579 said:Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Orr sank before a charr could even set foot on their land.

They made it into Orr, supposedly as far as the gates of Arah- we even got a glimpse of the invasion in the fractal section of Jahai Bluffs- but the kingdom sank before they could breach the holy city.

Yup they even managed to get a few searing cauldrons into Orr, the remains of one I think is still there, under water. (have to conform )(ok found the info from the wiki : A few non-interactive Searing Cauldrons can be seen near Broken Spit Waypoint in Straits of Devastation, half sunken in the water. )

[Stramatus.5219]

While I do agree there is some framework of "different perspectives" between the 2 games, that's used far too often as a cop out excuse to how far the differences became. I can go play GW1, I still have my Human Ascalonian character who witnessed the events. It's not just "perspective". Everything can be witnessed exactly as it was.

The Charr were quite obviously intelligent enough, but within Prophecies we never witnessed them even speak that I can recall. It wasn't until GW2 was announced in 2007 and then EotN released to bridge the two games that the Charr became far more than that, presumably in order for ANET to make them a playable race, and the inverse happened to the Ascalonians who were outside of Ebonhawke and the Ascalon Settlement largely reduced to cannon fodder ghosts. That's Adelbern's doing within lore, but that's ANET's doing within the game design to make Charr a playable race.

And that's what irked me as a GW1 veteran who played an Ascalonian Human. I'm all for the idea of evolution over the last 250 years, but surely you can see how a human player like me and I'm sure others feel like ANET really shafted the Ascalonians and by extension the players who selected that they were of Ascalonian ancestry within the personal story. You can say all humans are "Krytan" now, and while that's true that that remains the last human nation in Tyria, the Ascalonians are still there. Maybe not as a nation, but they still live and it's about time they stop getting kicked while they're down whether it was The Searing, the invasion, then the damn Foefire from their own king, and then the narrative direction that existed at the beginning of GW2 that painted Charr as simply "retaking a homeland" which in lore is completely wrong, but had certainly influenced the playerbase's perspective on the matter and at least back in the day, a perspective largely positive toward the Charr and negative towards the Ascalonians in past interactions I had had with folks on the subject in years past.

[Narcemus.1348]

I feel like your previous discussion is proof that they have done a good job of creating a grey story. Many of us long term Guild Wars 1 vets have disagreed with you on how the humans are "villianized". It is pretty obvious that there are two fairly large groups of player perspective for either side. You yourself claim this to be the goal of creating a grey story, and it exists.

[witcher.3197]

@"Narcemus.1348" said:I feel like your previous discussion is proof that they have done a good job of creating a grey story.

Then you don't know what a gray story is.

In a gray story we'd have two sides who each get about the same amount of attention in the story in the same game, each are given valid claims, and the conflict could go either way.

At no point in the history of this franchise does this happen. Humans are the definitive good guys in GW1 while Charr are the bad guys with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Then GW2 rolls around and Anet goes "oh shit we have to make these guys playable and have them work with humans, what do we do?", proceed to retcon the shit out of the story, going out of their way of justifying why the Charr get to keep Ascalon, meanwhile Ascalonians are sidelined and we are barely introduced to their side of the arguement in GW2.

Ascalonians are all but written out of the story in GW2 because Anet wants 0 conflict over Ascalon and therefore they just don't fit the narrative. They are given a peace treaty where the gratious Charr let them live in their mountain corner and that's it. Everyone who opposes the treaty is killed off by the writers. The Charr basically win and we are expected to NEVER question it. That is the OPPOSITE of a gray story.

Many of us long term Guild Wars 1 vets have disagreed with you on how the humans are "villianized". It is pretty obvious that there are two fairly large groups of player perspective for either side. You yourself claim this to be the goal of creating a grey story, and it exists.

Most of the people who were alienated by the narrative of GW2 are probably not going to be around to discuss things on the lore forum 7 years in, let's be honest. The "many of us" is a sample size of what, half a dozen? Irrelevant. All Charr fans too I assume, of course you like the narrative because it caters to you endlessly.

I'd be more interested in how many non-GW1 players even considered taking the Ascalonian side of the arguement. Not many, I'd imagine. Do you know why? Because again, Anet had decided that the Charr shall have Ascalon and they don't want anyone to dispute it, ever. They never really make it an option to symphatize with the humans of Ascalon in GW2. Hell they don't even put the full history into the game, just cherrypick the parts that make the Charr look good and humans look bad to spin a narrative around that. The only people who even bother to discuss this for the most part are those who played both games, the GW2-onlies probably never even questioned whether the Charr were in the right or not.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

I don't agree with all of witcher's points- I don't think we are expected to 'never' question the charr's right to Ascalon, and I don't think ANet ever pursued a deliberate policy to write off the Ascalonian perspective- but I also don't think it's up for debate that they've given that perspective very little visibility within the confines of GW2, and that imbalance will naturally have affected the views of players who aren't interested in dealing with a much older and very different game or with the novels. I'd boil it down to A.) ANet baking a ton of different conflicts into their setting and inevitably having to let a few fall through the cracks to balance the rest, and B.) not giving themselves any kind of tools within the game capable to exploring nuance, but regardless of the reasons why, the discrepancy is present... just not really relevant to the main story, which is less 'the charr win, deal with it' and more 'it doesn't matter who wins, we kinda have bigger fish lizards to fry.' In short, I'd argue that it is a gray story, but one told very poorly, simply because it isn't the story they're trying to tell.

As for "All Charr fans too I assume, of course you like the narrative because it caters to you endlessly," well... witcher, I know at least three of the people who disagreed with you in the other thread are 'human fans' who have at various points objected to the way that the race has been marginalized during the GW2 period. At least one of those is also a 'charr fan'- the two aren't mutually exclusive- and the fact of the matter is, the charr have been just as marginalized for almost as long. The humans have intermittently had the spot light through Seasons 3 and 4 and PoF. A valid argument could be made that those developments have been detrimental and it might've been better if they hadn't been touched upon, but ANet did at least try to give us something interesting. The charr haven't had center stage since... well, depending on how you frame things, since ever. All of their real 'gains' were in the background reading leading up to the game's launch. It's their turn in the sun, and even if the sylvari and human players aren't happy with what they got when they were up, that's no reason to want the charr (and norn!) players to have it bad now. I may not be as engaged with this plot as I was with previous ones, but personally, I do hope the charr get a proper deep-dive here.

[Stramatus.5219]

I think my problem is that as someone who mained an Ascalonian Human for as long as GW2 has now been out (2005 to 2012), I felt very little to no ties to being a Krytan in GW2. And indeed the personal story Dead Sister branch allowed me to state to Logan that my GW2 character was "Ascalonian and damn proud of it." or something like that. Yet there is really no mechanism within the human side of the story to effectively play my character as Ascalonian. I find that to be overall rather jarring. Especially since I tied my toon as a descendant of my GW1 toon (hall of monuments, linked accounts). It would stand to reason that my toon would perhaps view the conflict somewhat differently, but throughout the story acts as a Krytan.

Meanwhile the Charr became a playable race and the double whammy was that not only were Ascalonians completely diminished as something the player could be, the story was then reframed around "retaking a homeland" which did frame the Ascalonians in a different light than GW1, especially to a player base that might not have played GW1 or was otherwise familiar with the lore outside what's in the game.

[Gorgaan Peaudesang.8324]

witcher.3197 said:Because of all the retcons GW2 doesn't really expand on the story told in GW1, rather tries to replace it.The story told in GW1 foreshadowed the certain demise of the Human Kingdom of Ascalon, and the Ascalonian hero took the difficult decision to leave his nation behind for a better life in Kryta.

Regardless of what EOTN did to flesh out the Charr, the dynamics of the Human race in Central Tyria was already known and GW2 is true to it: Ascalon was a lost cause while Kryta was, and still is, the most sustainable kingdom in the continent.

In 1325 AE, Ascalon is a cursed land operated by the Charr for generations. What would be the point to reclaim the fallen human kingdom if your perspective is:-at worst, getting crushed by the overwhelming force of the Charr?-at best, getting the honor to endlessly fight your ancestors?

[Narcemus.1348]

@"witcher.3197" said:Most of the people who were alienated by the narrative of GW2 are probably not going to be around to discuss things on the lore forum 7 years in, let's be honest. The "many of us" is a sample size of what, half a dozen? Irrelevant. All Charr fans too I assume, of course you like the narrative because it caters to you endlessly.

Yes, and many of the people who are not bothered either way on the subject find the idea of reading such lengthy discussions dull and don't bother commenting. We cannot assume anything based on those who do not say anything. And you seem to assume that I am a "All Charr, all the time" player which isn't true. I play charr probably 1/4 of the time at best. I have 5 characters one for each race, my main is a Sylvari (who I see as a reincarnation of my main from prophecies) and my next closest to main is my Human Ascalonian Guardian (descendant of my main also). I spent years playing Guild Wars before Guild wars 2 came out during which time I played through all of the games in chronological order, my main was my first pre-searing character, I also have and love my perma-pre and have a third ascalonian character that I used to help bring another player up through the game. I've hated the charr with every fiber of my being, and have grown to respect what Arenanet has done to grow them as a race.

In my time outside of the game, I have spent many hours on these forums discussing the good nature of humans and the balanced nature of the good and evil on both sides to those who view things in a "only charr" sort of way, and have been hated against by some for that reason (hated may be a strong word, perhaps belligerently argued against me?). To add to that, I have never once heard from any of my guildies (from Guild Wars 1) anything along the lines of what you are discussing. I have one guildie that refused to play a charr character in memory of GW1, but he never complained about any unfairness. I do know at least one that would claim that the Asura did more to destroy the feel of Guild Wars than any other race. But we'll just have to agree to disagree. I find the idea of having to shoehorn a lot of human centric perspective into a land where the charr rule and their perspective should be prevalent to be a bad one. The only proper places for human centric perspective in Ascalon anymore should be from human Ghosts, Ebonhawke, and roaming priory members. This is the last I will add to this subject, though. I don't feel the need to hit my head against a brick wall when my OPINION is out there now.

[Kalavier.1097]

@"Gorgaan Peaudesang.8324" said:

witcher.3197 said:

Because of all the retcons GW2 doesn't really expand on the story told in GW1, rather tries to replace it.The story told in GW1 foreshadowed the certain demise of the Human Kingdom of Ascalon, and the Ascalonian hero took the difficult decision to leave his nation behind for a better life in Kryta.

Regardless of what EOTN did to flesh out the Charr, the dynamics of the Human race in Central Tyria was already known and GW2 is true to it: Ascalon was a lost cause while Kryta was, and still is, the most sustainable kingdom in the continent.

In 1325 AE, Ascalon is a cursed land operated by the Charr for generations. What would be the point to reclaim the fallen human kingdom if your perspective is:-at worst, getting crushed by the overwhelming force of the Charr?-at best, getting the honor to endlessly fight your ancestors?

I once joked to a person who claimed "I'd just go talk to Adelbern, and get the ghosts to help us fight the charr out of Ascalon!" by saying "Yeah, but there are no true sons/daughters of Ascalon anymore in Adelbern's eyes. Literally every Ascalonian alive today in GW2, is descended from those who Adelbern viewed as traitors, got banished by him, or weren't even ascalonian(to him). Every truly loyal soldier to Adelbern is now a ghost." Hell, Adelbern cast the foefire upon seeing the last soldiers and civilians of Ascalon city attempt to flee after the Charr breached the walls/gates.

And yeah, GW1 made zero effort to hide the fact that Ascalon was doomed. Whether it was doomed because of the searing, the split of population leaving to Kryta, or Adelbern's insane stubbornness and refusal of all Krytan aid he repeatedly was offered. As I like to say it, you had two groups of Ascalonians. The Rurik's, and the Adelbern's.

The Rurik group are willing to fight to the death to defend their land or family, but can understand a lost cause and how retreating can save lives, and allow you to win another day. Adelbern group refuse to let any wrong slide, and will sit inside a burning castle as opposed to let the enemy take it. We see the former group in Ebonhawke, Ascalon Settlement, and Rurikton. Proud people who are willing to accept changes if that means surviving to win another day, and won't throw lives away for no reason.The latter is seen in the Seperatists. Ones who would slaughter humans who disagree with them, and would rather continue an endless war with no hope of victory rather then accept a mutually agreed upon peace.

IIRC, even back in GW1 there was official texts describing the situation in Ascalon as the people being torn between Adelbern (circle the wagons, refuse to give an inch, refuse all aid from Kryta) and Rurik (Smart, loved, and if need be, would rather guide his people away from certain doom then to wait).

People say "Ascalonians are villians!" But they aren't. The ones who are made to be villains are the same type of Ascalonian as Adelbern, who would rather stab a former enemy then accept their aid. The rest are shown to be normal, decent people who just want to live and help.

[Zaklex.6308]

You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

[Loesh.4697]

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

That seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. While it's possible that the motivation behind the Charr attacking Ascalon was codified as being a retaking of land in Guild Wars: Prophecies, it wasn't framed that way and none of the Charr, even in GWEN mention as such. Pyre hints at it being so by telling Gwen 'You know nothing of my people' in Eye of the North if you're being generous, but even then...

It was likely written after in Guild Wars 2 as a means of making the Charr more sympathetic. If this is any indication some people take the stance that it does, and...others do not. I'm of the stance I don't mind the change, I hardly view the humans as violent colonists for breaking the oppressive Charr empire and driving them north. The Centaur and Heket have far better claims to objecting to human expansion on grounds of morality.

[witcher.3197]

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

Look up what a retcon is.

[Harak.8397]

Says who ? Who asked the Charr why they were attacking the wall back then ? All we had was the human perspective: "These monsters have been attacking us forever, they enslave or kill and eat us. We must fight back." It isn't until EotN that we learn they can actually communicate with more than grunts and growls.

[Zaklex.6308]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

That seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. While it's possible that the motivation behind the Charr attacking Ascalon was codified as being a retaking of land in Guild Wars: Prophecies, it wasn't framed that way and none of the Charr, even in GWEN mention as such. Pyre hints at it being so by telling Gwen 'You know nothing of my people' in Eye of the North if you're being generous, but even then...

It was likely written after in Guild Wars 2 as a means of making the Charr more sympathetic. If this is any indication some people take the stance that it does, and...others do not. I'm of the stance I don't mind the change, I hardly view the humans as violent colonists for breaking the oppressive Charr empire and driving them north. The Centaur and Heket have far better claims to objecting to human expansion on grounds of morality.

@witcher.3197 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

Look up what a retcon is.

You'd both have to delve deeper into the lore to know it's neither a retcon or unknown at the time...and have read what some of the devs said back then as well, oh wait, unless you had been in one of the...hmm, wonder if the NDA from that still applies too, like the current one for GW2 still applies from back when.

[Loesh.4697]

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

That seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. While it's possible that the motivation behind the Charr attacking Ascalon was codified as being a retaking of land in Guild Wars: Prophecies, it wasn't framed that way and none of the Charr, even in GWEN mention as such. Pyre hints at it being so by telling Gwen 'You know nothing of my people' in Eye of the North if you're being generous, but even then...

It was likely written after in Guild Wars 2 as a means of making the Charr more sympathetic. If this is any indication some people take the stance that it does, and...others do not. I'm of the stance I don't mind the change, I hardly view the humans as violent colonists for breaking the oppressive Charr empire and driving them north. The Centaur and Heket have far better claims to objecting to human expansion on grounds of morality.

@witcher.3197 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

Look up what a retcon is.

You'd both have to delve deeper into the lore to know it's neither a retcon or unknown at the time...and have read what some of the devs said back then as well, oh wait, unless you had been in one of the...hmm, wonder if the NDA from that still applies too, like the current one for GW2 still applies from back when.

Like I said, possible, but unlikely. At the very least horrendously miscommunicated if that's the case, the Charr do not exactly come off as a victimized indigenous tribe so much as a relentless band of conquerors. Which is consistent even with Dev comments in the modern day, which paint them as being a historical parallel with the Mongol horde.

If there is some dev statements from 2005 that indicate that was the original intention of the Charr though i'd be happy to see them.

[Zaklex.6308]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

That seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. While it's possible that the motivation behind the Charr attacking Ascalon was codified as being a retaking of land in Guild Wars: Prophecies, it wasn't framed that way and none of the Charr, even in GWEN mention as such. Pyre hints at it being so by telling Gwen 'You know nothing of my people' in Eye of the North if you're being generous, but even then...

It was likely written after in Guild Wars 2 as a means of making the Charr more sympathetic. If this is any indication some people take the stance that it does, and...others do not. I'm of the stance I don't mind the change, I hardly view the humans as violent colonists for breaking the oppressive Charr empire and driving them north. The Centaur and Heket have far better claims to objecting to human expansion on grounds of morality.

@witcher.3197 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

Look up what a retcon is.

You'd both have to delve deeper into the lore to know it's neither a retcon or unknown at the time...and have read what some of the devs said back then as well, oh wait, unless you had been in one of the...hmm, wonder if the NDA from that still applies too, like the current one for GW2 still applies from back when.

Like I said, possible, but unlikely. At the very least

horrendously

miscommunicated if that's the case, the Charr do not exactly come off as a victimized indigenous tribe so much as a relentless band of conquerors. Which is consistent even with Dev comments in the modern day, which paint them as being a historical parallel with the Mongol horde.

If there is some dev statements from 2005 that indicate that was the original intention of the Charr though i'd be happy to see them.

Unfortunately, they where sort of internal statements...made during testing, when we'd have informal discussions, so not sure if you can even count those as canon...but we could always say it's a matter of opinion and then everyone would be right to a degree.

[Stramatus.5219]

In GW1 and lore writings it was very clear that Ascalon shielded other realms in Tyria from the Charr. Perhaps a bad analogy, but reminds me of Gondor shielding much of Middle-earth from the bulk force of Mordor.

[witcher.3197]

@"Stramatus.5219" said:In GW1 and lore writings it was very clear that Ascalon shielded other realms in Tyria from the Charr. Perhaps a bad analogy, but reminds me of Gondor shielding much of Middle-earth from the bulk force of Mordor.

That's a pretty good analogy actually. Charr were originally supposed to be Orcs but it was changed because they wanted a less generic enemy, thus creating the Charr aka "demon cats" as they were called internally.

[Kalavier.1097]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

That seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. While it's possible that the motivation behind the Charr attacking Ascalon was codified as being a retaking of land in Guild Wars: Prophecies, it wasn't framed that way and none of the Charr, even in GWEN mention as such. Pyre hints at it being so by telling Gwen 'You know nothing of my people' in Eye of the North if you're being generous, but even then...

It was likely written after in Guild Wars 2 as a means of making the Charr more sympathetic. If this is any indication some people take the stance that it does, and...others do not. I'm of the stance I don't mind the change, I hardly view the humans as violent colonists for breaking the oppressive Charr empire and driving them north. The Centaur and Heket have far better claims to objecting to human expansion on grounds of morality.

@witcher.3197 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:You lost me once you got to the part about the Charr retaking their land in GW2...you do realize that was what they where trying to do in GW1 even, don't you?

Look up what a retcon is.

You'd both have to delve deeper into the lore to know it's neither a retcon or unknown at the time...and have read what some of the devs said back then as well, oh wait, unless you had been in one of the...hmm, wonder if the NDA from that still applies too, like the current one for GW2 still applies from back when.

Like I said, possible, but unlikely. At the very least

horrendously

miscommunicated if that's the case, the Charr do not exactly come off as a victimized indigenous tribe so much as a relentless band of conquerors. Which is consistent even with Dev comments in the modern day, which paint them as being a historical parallel with the Mongol horde.

If there is some dev statements from 2005 that indicate that was the original intention of the Charr though i'd be happy to see them.

They don't have to be a victimized indigenous tribe to be "retaking their homeland".

I've never taken the Charr as being victimized, but that Iron legion/at least some consider Ascalon and ancestral homeland.

[ZDragon.3046]

Charr are the victims its not the standard sit around and cry about it they chose to out right do something about it. One of the legions going as far as to make the first un cultural step (even if not fully in the best ways or right direction) to assure they wouldn't lose which resulted in them branching off from the other 3 and becoming out cast. That said ive never felt like charr were some race that was victimized probably because they retaliated so well when threatened and they are quick to do it without warning "Female charr especially"

I imagine charr in the past were even more head strong than they are now (in terms of gw1 and what we can imagine before gw1)
Its kind of easy to see though how some charr such as Bangar would be stuck in the ways of the past.

The charr have always been war culture strong and very very VERY hardheaded when it comes to changing and adapting away from their culture and beliefs even if its only temporary. This stands out with blood legion more so than any other legion too. Its no surprise to me that Bangar still clings to the past and dislikes the other races. Assuming he lives through everything i doubt he will ever trust any non "blood legion born" charr.

[ZDragon.3046]

@"Harak.8397" said:Says who ? Who asked the Charr why they were attacking the wall back then ? All we had was the human perspective: "These monsters have been attacking us forever, they enslave or kill and eat us. We must fight back." It isn't until EotN that we learn they can actually communicate with more than grunts and growls.

Well from my understanding (and i could be wrong) charr were in Tyria long before humans were. If a new species just pops up on your land boarders one day thats kind of a problem.IF aliens try to land on earth do you think we are going to sit and have tea with them or try and figure out what they are? No the initial human response will be shoot first figure out the mess later.I imagine this is what the charr were doing and what they would try do to any race they came across that was not their own.