Jump to content
  • Sign Up

The disappointing story (Spoilers)


Tazer.2157

Recommended Posts

There are 2 things that annoy me about the new living world. The first is the portrayal of Smodur and Crecia. The story tries so very hard to make Smodur look like an arrogant fool while Crecia is made to look like the wise mother, who can do no wrong. Trying her very best to save the Char. In doing so the Char are made to look like fools who have no idea what they are doing, a race that cannot be self deterministic and only Crecia the savior knows whats best for them. The Charr have fought the Norn, the humans, the ghosts of Ascalon and somehow a civil war will destroy them? Give me a break!

The second is the opinion of the commander in the story. Why is the commander given lines to disagree with Smodur? Aren't we the commander? Don't we get to choose if we agree or disagree with Smodur? The way in which Smodur was made the antagonist, the game has made me do something no other game before has; taking the side of the antagonist. When exploring themes of morality, there should be grey areas, it should not be as simple as black or white. The witcher does this beautifully. In the witcher. there are consequences to every action (Actions we perceive as good/bad), but when there are only consequences to decisions one side takes, it begins to feel like the writers are not telling a story but rather injecting their opinions of morality in the game. I just don't enjoy that.

Anyway whose side are you on? Team Smodur, team Crecia or team Bangar? If I could pick, I would choose Bangar. A Charr trying to control an Elder Dragon? sign me up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with the Smodur point. Suddenly, the diplomat Smodur started to act as a ruthless villain. Not to speak about his lack of imagination or tolerance. A suspect storage on the map? Destroy it. No matter the cost. I wonder what advantages he saw by killing the hostage in front of Ryland? His intention was to made sure Ryland will remain on the enemy side? HM?

Anyhow, I can see his end. If Ryland survives he will kill Smodur. If Ryland will not survive, Smodur will face Crecia or Rytlock fury. Most probably a deadly fury.

What I don't understand in the story is how Ryland and his warband (and also nobody else) noticed how the chars turned into icebroods? And how Bangar manages to lead his troops without showing himself. Because )for me at least) is clear that Bangar is already corrupted. At mental level - and most probably at physical level too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of how Smodur is acting either, since it feels like a reversal to how he was depicted before: the progressive modernizer and the reasonable face for the playable charr, which focuses on Ascalonian charr. But I like the theory that Smodur is hearing whispers from Jormag as well. Jormag may be manipulating things to ensure that Ryland and as many charr as possible that he brings would be converted into Frost Legion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tazer.2157 said:There are 2 things that annoy me about the new living world. The first is the portrayal of Smodur and Crecia. The story tries so very hard to make Smodur look like an arrogant fool while Crecia is made to look like the wise mother, who can do no wrong. Trying her very best to save the Char. In doing so the Char are made to look like fools who have no idea what they are doing, a race that cannot be self deterministic and only Crecia the savior knows whats best for them. The Charr have fought the Norn, the humans, the ghosts of Ascalon and somehow a civil war will destroy them? Give me a break!

The second is the opinion of the commander in the story. Why is the commander given lines to disagree with Smodur? Aren't we the commander? Don't we get to choose if we agree or disagree with Smodur? The way in which Smodur was made the antagonist, the game has made me do something no other game before has; taking the side of the antagonist. When exploring themes of morality, there should be grey areas, it should not be as simple as black or white. The witcher does this beautifully. In the witcher. there are consequences to every action (Actions we perceive as good/bad), but when there are only consequences to decisions one side takes, it begins to feel like the writers are not telling a story but rather injecting their opinions of morality in the game. I just don't enjoy that.

Anyway whose side are you on? Team Smodur, team Crecia or team Bangar? If I could pick, I would choose Bangar. A Charr trying to control an Elder Dragon? sign me up!

I'm on team Crecia, but only because they suddendly decided to make Smodur into a bloodthirsty ass on a killing spree who also thinks he can boss the PC around like we are one of his minions and not an ally. I hope there is a good reason to explain why he is acting so different from before. Maybe they want to push someone else for the position of Khan-Ur when the civil war is over, so they are trying to make Smodur unlikeable in order to explain why he doesn't get the title?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who's played since near the beginning of the game would remember that Smodur's an opportunist. Anything that brings him closer to Khan-Ur status, he'll do it. He's progressive, sure, but he's progressive to suit his bottom line. His only other competition for Khan-Ur was Bangar and with Bangar out of the running with his shenanigans, Smodur's chance at becoming Khan-Ur is closer.

Him acting like he did in the latest episode didn't surprise or disappoint me at all. To me, it makes sense. He's so close to becoming Khan-Ur he can taste it. He can taste the blood in the water and he's striking. Sloppily, sure, but striking all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said:Anyone who's played since near the beginning of the game would remember that Smodur's an opportunist. Anything that brings him closer to Khan-Ur status, he'll do it. He's progressive, sure, but he's progressive to suit his bottom line. His only other competition for Khan-Ur was Bangar and with Bangar out of the running with his shenanigans, Smodur's chance at becoming Khan-Ur is closer.

Him acting like he did in the latest episode didn't surprise or disappoint me at all. To me, it makes sense. He's so close to becoming Khan-Ur he can taste it. He can taste the blood in the water and he's striking. Sloppily, sure, but striking all the same.

He seemed a little over the top, but it struck me as Iron Legion has been shown to approach problems. They are smarter/more war machine focused then Blood, but they don't like to waste time. I'm seeing it as partly sick of wasting time, partly not wanting to allow anymore time to pass then needed because of Desertions, attrition, and other factors.

He doesn't care about bringing the Steel warband back to their side because they had already picked and spearheaded for the enemy. Better to wipe them out and ruin morale for the other side, possibly hurt desertions with that knowledge. "Your heroes are dead, and we've taken back all the land you captured. It's over!" and all.

This isn't a "Well this war has dragged on for ages and has basically been us randomly lobbing artillery at each other. And we really need forces in other places." This is a brutal, draining civil war that sees his forces desert on a daily basis. He not only wants it over immediately, but he needs it. It's a stain on his record as a leader, I bet he thinks so at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheOrlyFactor.8341 said:

Him acting like he did in the latest episode didn't surprise or disappoint me at all. To me, it makes sense. He's so close to becoming Khan-Ur he can taste it. He can taste the blood in the water and he's striking. Sloppily, sure, but striking all the same.

I don’t mind him for the way he wages war or his actions. What bothers me is the way the story makes him look antagonistic. There was no need for the game to write his dialogue in a way where he orders the commander around. His dialogue is not of an opportunist but rather a bratty kid. Being an opportunist is being smart. It is not smart to get the commander against you. Even the dialog between rytlock and commander is unfavorable towards Smodur, in the end he is unliked by everyone. Again the story is pitching a us against him scenario. Meanwhile we have crecia the perfect who everyone loves and can do no wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I wasn't fond of what they did with Smodur either. It's pretty clear that the writers wanted a bad guy among the united legions, didn't want it to be Rytlock or Crecia, and Smodur was the only one left they could squeeze into the role. Malice of Ash is just going to be too smart for that, and putting Efram in that role just as they're looking to redeem the Flame Legion? Yyyyeah, no.

It seems particularly weird when you consider that Smodur had been presented as possibly the most forward-thinking of the Imperators, including as recently as the prologue (where Smodur is the one that's completely fine with Aurene), which is very much at odds with his portrayal here. Yes, there's nothing to say that "forward thinking" and "ruthless" can't coincide in the same individual, but what we saw this episode wasn't pragmatic ruthlessness, it was stupid ruthlessness. He cut short a negotiation which, if successful, could have substantially shortened the war both through intelligence and through propaganda potential (if Ryland, who was coming across as being Bangar's top commander, defected to the United Legions, that'd probably stem the tide of defections the other way pretty quickly) and alienated the other leaders that he'd need the support of to become Khan-Ur... to the point where he's now pretty much guaranteed he'll never be accepted as such by the leaders of the other legions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like Crecia and I didn't have the same problem with Smodur as some of you.

I didn't see Smodur as a progressive, I saw him as a populist. I got the impression he would do whatever it took to gain and keep power. I also didn't think he really cared about who he hurt doing it. It's often in life that people point to the great things they're doing, even if they're doing them for all the wrong reasons. I think this was one of those cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know if it is that the writers do not have time to work on the narrative or find it difficult to do it in this medium, Or perhaps they need to create a story with certain parameters established and do what they can with the bad decisions already made. But they always fail with the logic of the characters that use or feel forced.

The charr have lived for centuries in permanent war, having a society formed for that state. And they tell us this civil war will be the end of the char? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Smodur's actions is that they're all counterproductive. Executing defectors? Now your enemies have reason to fight to the death which is not useful when fighting a war of propaganda. When you're outnumbered you want enemy soldiers to defect so your enemy has less soldiers. Talking down to one of your best resources? They might tell you to get stuffed and imagine the morale loss if the commander walks out. Taking out the lab where your enemy is doing R&D on weapons? Reasonable. Using a searing crystal to do it and enraging one of your allies when you are already outnumbered? Not a good move. Executing a hostage in the middle of negotiations? Not only are the current negotiations shot but future ones are going to be off the table. Smodur was supposed to have some level of shrewdness but here he has taken multiple levels in idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Smodur's actions make perfect sense for his character. He's progressive in some ways, so sure he's reasonable enough when we talk to him in his office, but he's still a Charr military leader during wartime. He can have progressive politics and still believe in taking no prisoners during war. I'm sure there have been plenty of military leaders in recent history like that in real life. Smodur has in many ways revolutionized Charr politics, but he didn't come out of nowhere. He is still solidly a product of his society.

Plus, he seems to be responding directly to Bangar's propaganda campaign. He's used to winning on tactics, but Bangar is a better populist than he is and the propaganda is beating Smodur's strategy. I think that has Smodur a bit on the backfoot and now he's going out of his way to act cruel, to show that the Legions aren't "weak". He's making the mistake of trying to out-Bangar Bangar, and he's doing it all wrong.

And honestly, I don't really think war crimes are a thing in Charr society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smodur doesn't care about Ryland, he just wants to end the war.I think if he could have killed him he would have already done it, which is why it seems to go against what the Commander wants.

As progressive as Smodur may be, it seems obvious to me that he cannot be weak in this situation, we are talking about a civil war and our faction has lost some of its men.

But please Anet don't spoil Smodur for the family situation of Crecia, Rytlock and Ryland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Perihen the Thawk.9527 said:I think Smodur's actions make perfect sense for his character. He's progressive in some ways, so sure he's reasonable enough when we talk to him in his office, but he's still a Charr military leader during wartime. He can have progressive politics and still believe in taking no prisoners during war. I'm sure there have been plenty of military leaders in recent history like that in real life. Smodur has in many ways revolutionized Charr politics, but he didn't come out of nowhere. He is still solidly a product of his society.

I 100% agree with this assessment. I think Smodur of the core game story could afford to be more progressive - but now, the situation is quite different. He's not dealing with ghosts and ragtag renegades (very real but also very manageable issues that the Charr have brought to a point of stability), but an organized faction rallying around a well-liked young hero and a cunning/charismatic leader. If he looks, sounds, and acts a bit different, it could well be the result of him being in an entirely different situation.

That being said, I also agree with the idea that the story was very sloppily done and overly moralistic. It was ridiculous to have my character just slaughter Dominion forces in the open world, but suddenly have issues with killing. Just stupid, and extremely disappointing from a narrative perspective.

It would have required more work, but if the devs really wanted to give any meaning or value to the Commander's objection to using the explosive on a staffed bunker, they should have just let Smodur be up front with the mission (why should he feel the need to hide the fact that they're going to kill some more Dominion charr?) and allow the Commander to refuse (for whatever reason - there's still no real logic behind this) up front as well. Then the commander could either just watch helplessly as Smodur sends someone else to do the job, or sends the Commander on some secondary objective while that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree on the OP about Crecia being "a mother figure who can do no wrong". She's made plenty of mistakes in this episode alone. The way I'm seeing Crecia is as a conflicted mother figure - one who selfishly wants best for her child, but also wants best for her nation, and is struggling (and failing) to keep both.

As to Smodur, I'll just quote myself from the other No Quarter thread:

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:Although Smodur is established as a progressive charr, the situation we're in now is vastly different than at launch. At launch, charr had enemies on all sides - Flame Legion, ghosts, branded, ogres, and humans - and this was the public reason why Malice and Smodur wanted peace with humans. Smodur has been taking credit for the peace accords, despite the fact that the actions which put everything into play (getting Vigil to retrieve the Claw of the Khan-Ur and give it to Jennah so she could offer it to Smodur to initiate peace talks) was Malice's and Almorra's actions and planning. Since peace with humans, the branded have been wiped out, progress was made against the ghosts, and the Flame Legion are now allied.

On top of that, Smodur's only "rival" in petitioning for the position of Khan-Ur was always Bangar. Now that Bangar is labeled a traitor to the other two imperators post-Bound by Blood, Smodur basically sees the position of Khan-Ur as effectively gained. This is why he goes about ordering other legion soldiers left and right. Which naturally bothers the officers of other legions (as firmly established by Rytlock, who before was working with Smodur as a more-or-less equal due to being a Tribune in another legion).

Another possibility for Smodur's apparent change in personality, is due to whom we're fighting - this is the first time we've seen Smodur's attitude towards "traitorous charr". We never once got to hear his take on Renegades prior to Season 5, and in Bound by Blood, he was pretty bloodthirsty towards the notion of getting to fight Renegades.

Then there's also Ryland himself. Ryland is young, strong, and charismatic. He is quickly showing up to be a rising threat to Smodur's dominance as Khan-Ur. So naturally, Smodur wants to nip this in the bud. Hence his constant regard to dismissing Ryland and the Steel Warband, preferring to just kill them instead of negotiation.

Finally, and most peculiarly, there's the possibility of external interference. Specifically speaking, Jormag. Throughout the episode, Smodur is repeating a key phrase in various wording: "We don't need traitors". He even says this moments before that critical moment in the final instance. If Jormag's been whispering in his mind that he doesn't need traitors, over and over again, well, that'll get to him.

TL;DR

  • Change in scenario, leading to peaceful and progressiveness giving way to agressiveness to achieve his goals.
  • Bangar, his only rival, is effectively "out of the picture" and he considers himself Khan-Ur - initiate power tripping.
  • He might simply despise traitorous charr more than anything else.
  • Ryland is an up-and-coming rival that he doesn't want now that Bangar is out of the picture.
  • Jormag influencing.

While at first glance Smodur's actions felt out of character, the more I thought about it, the more his actions still fit within his character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Tazer.2157" said:In doing so the Char are made to look like fools who have no idea what they are doing, a race that cannot be self deterministic and only Crecia the savior knows whats best for them.Here's the thing, the Charr DON'T have any idea what they are doing.

The Charr have all the same problems the Klingons form Star Trek do, in that they are a race dedicated solely to war and violence, but war and violence are only a means to an end, not an end themselves. But the Charr, like the Klingons, have no sort of idea or plan for once that end is reached. Because of this, even if the Charr manage to take over the whole world, they will still need to keep their war machine going, and will inevitably turn on themselves, and consume themselves in that same war... which is pretty much what is happening right now.

As has been said, the Charr have always had enemies... but what do they do once they don't? They turn on themselves. The ghosts aren't a major problem anymore, the Flame Legion has been defeated, and re-assimilated, there is peace with the humans, and three of the Elder Dragons are dead, including the one that was giving them the most trouble. And now, left absent a major enemy, the Charr society begins its collapse in on itself via infighting.

What we are seeing now is the Charr's "Undiscovered Country" moment, where the Charr have to realize their entire civilization is fundamentally broken as is, and that things have to change if they want to survive. Crecia is basically the Charr's Gorkon, the leader who is willing to go against the norms to fix things, while Bangar and Smodur are the Charr's General Changs, the guys who want things to be the way they were, even if its obviously stupidly bad for them.

Its really no different then the Norn's problem of caring about the "individual" to the point they basically lack a society, something even the Spirits of the Wild noticed and led them south so they wouldn't all die trying to take Jormag on one at a time. Or the Asura's egotism being so massive that their civilization basically spins its wheels in the mud all the time since 90% of what they invent is lost because no one is willing to share. Non-human civilization in fantasy and scifi exist to take on aspect of humanity, and personify it to the extreme, to point out the obvious flaws in such a society. This is true of Elves and Dwarfs in fantasy settings, to the Klingons and Romulans in scifi like Star Trek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@"Tazer.2157" said:In doing so the Char are made to look like fools who have no idea what they are doing, a race that cannot be self deterministic and only Crecia the savior knows whats best for them.Here's the thing, the Charr DON'T have any idea what they are doing.

The Charr have all the same problems the Klingons form Star Trek do, in that they are a race dedicated solely to war and violence, but war and violence are only a means to an end, not an end themselves. But the Charr, like the Klingons, have no sort of idea or plan for once that end is reached. Because of this, even if the Charr manage to take over the whole world, they will still need to keep their war machine going, and will inevitably turn on themselves, and consume themselves in that same war... which is pretty much what is happening right now.

As has been said, the Charr have always had enemies... but what do they do once they don't? They turn on themselves. The ghosts aren't a major problem anymore, the Flame Legion has been defeated, and re-assimilated, there is peace with the humans, and three of the Elder Dragons are dead, including the one that was giving them the most trouble. And now, left absent a major enemy, the Charr society begins its collapse in on itself via infighting.

What we are seeing now is the Charr's "Undiscovered Country" moment, where the Charr have to realize their entire civilization is fundamentally broken as is, and that things have to change if they want to survive. Crecia is basically the Charr's Gorkon, the leader who is willing to go against the norms to fix things, while Bangar and Smodur are the Charr's General Changs, the guys who want things to be the way they were, even if its obviously stupidly bad for them.

Its really no different then the Norn's problem of caring about the "individual" to the point they basically lack a society, something even the Spirits of the Wild noticed and led them south so they wouldn't all die trying to take Jormag on one at a time. Or the Asura's egotism being so massive that their civilization basically spins its wheels in the mud all the time since 90% of what they invent is lost because no one is willing to share. Non-human civilization in fantasy and scifi exist to take on aspect of humanity, and personify it to the extreme, to point out the obvious flaws in such a society. This is true of Elves and Dwarfs in fantasy settings, to the Klingons and Romulans in scifi like Star Trek.

There are so many problems with your statement. What you are suggesting is equivalent to a form of colonialism. Where one race decides whats best for the other race. This has happened in our history. I do not think GW2 needs to explore this side because it is complex, it needs time to be believable and it is very easy to mess up. The Charr have been bred for battle, they have killed, conquered and seen members of their warband fall. If change needs to happen, it should be the Charr that decide their fate. As a commander who is not a Charr and who only knows a single Charr, I should not be in a position to determine the future of the Charr. The sudden change in ones character is detrimental to the story and does not serve it. Game of thrones season 8 is a reminder that for change to happen, it cannot be done instantaneously.

Star trek is wonderful because of the diversity of the world and the stakes. In Star trek, no attempt was made to change the character of the Klingons. They were who they were. Every other way seemed alien to them the same way we humans perceive morality. I think the devs should follow a similar approach with the Charr. Keep the Charr unique and let them remain the ruthless, warmongering race they are. We do not need humans 2.0 in GW2 where everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya. One big happy family with the commander at the helm. That honestly makes the commander Emperor Palpatine.

When you say "their entire civilization is broken" you are looking at it from the perspective of a human. Our norms of what a civilization should be is due to our history, our religious beliefs and our culture. We cannot expect the Charr to have the same ideals as we do. That is impossible.

Having races that live by different ideals makes the world diverse. It is not diverse if everyone shares the same thought. The Olmakhan are special because they chose a different way of life from their Charr counterparts. Are we to judge which side is right and wrong? Is the commander now a supreme being who decides what the rules are? Again these can be explored but if they are, there are always two sides to the story and both must be given equal opportunity and the ultimate decision must be left to the player, not the writers. But a story like that is best suited for single player games and not a mmorpg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:I disagree on the OP about Crecia being "a mother figure who can do no wrong". She's made plenty of mistakes in this episode alone. The way I'm seeing Crecia is as a conflicted mother figure - one who selfishly wants best for her child, but also wants best for her nation, and is struggling (and failing) to keep both.

Name a single instance where we were made to feel that Crecia is conflicted or wrong? From the start of the episode she is shown make all the right decisions. Is Crecia really failing? At the end of the episode, all the Charr leaders and the commander (for whatever reason) openly dislike Smodur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:I disagree on the OP about Crecia being "a mother figure who can do no wrong". She's made plenty of mistakes in this episode alone. The way I'm seeing Crecia is as a conflicted mother figure - one who selfishly wants best for her child, but also wants best for her nation, and is struggling (and failing) to keep both.

As to Smodur, I'll just quote myself from the other No Quarter thread:

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:Although Smodur is established as a progressive charr, the situation we're in now is vastly different than at launch. At launch, charr had enemies on all sides - Flame Legion, ghosts, branded, ogres, and humans - and this was the public reason why Malice and Smodur wanted peace with humans. Smodur has been taking credit for the peace accords, despite the fact that the actions which put everything into play (getting Vigil to retrieve the Claw of the Khan-Ur and give it to Jennah so she could offer it to Smodur to initiate peace talks) was Malice's and Almorra's actions and planning. Since peace with humans, the branded have been wiped out, progress was made against the ghosts, and the Flame Legion are now allied.

On top of that, Smodur's only "rival" in petitioning for the position of Khan-Ur was always Bangar. Now that Bangar is labeled a traitor to the other two imperators post-Bound by Blood, Smodur basically sees the position of Khan-Ur as effectively gained. This is why he goes about ordering other legion soldiers left and right. Which naturally bothers the officers of other legions (as firmly established by Rytlock, who before was working with Smodur as a more-or-less equal due to being a Tribune in another legion).

Another possibility for Smodur's apparent change in personality, is due to whom we're fighting - this is the first time we've seen Smodur's attitude towards "traitorous charr". We never once got to hear his take on Renegades prior to Season 5, and in Bound by Blood, he was pretty bloodthirsty towards the notion of getting to fight Renegades.

Then there's also Ryland himself. Ryland is young, strong, and charismatic. He is
quickly
showing up to be a rising threat to Smodur's dominance as Khan-Ur. So naturally, Smodur wants to nip this in the bud. Hence his constant regard to dismissing Ryland and the Steel Warband, preferring to just kill them instead of negotiation.

Finally, and most peculiarly, there's the possibility of external interference. Specifically speaking, Jormag. Throughout the episode, Smodur is repeating a key phrase in various wording: "We don't need traitors". He even says this moments before that critical moment in the final instance. If Jormag's been whispering in his mind that he doesn't need traitors, over and over again, well, that'll get to him.

TL;DR
  • Change in scenario, leading to peaceful and progressiveness giving way to agressiveness to achieve his goals.
  • Bangar, his only rival, is effectively "out of the picture" and he considers himself Khan-Ur - initiate power tripping.
  • He might simply despise traitorous charr more than anything else.
  • Ryland is an up-and-coming rival that he doesn't want now that Bangar is out of the picture.
  • Jormag influencing.

While at first glance Smodur's actions felt out of character, the more I thought about it, the more his actions still fit within his character.

I found this post with all plausible hypotheses really nice, I would like to exclude Jormag because it would make the story a little boring from my point of view.I like points two and three, personally I think it's a part of his character. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tazer.2157 said:

@"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:I disagree on the OP about Crecia being "a mother figure who can do no wrong". She's made plenty of mistakes in this episode alone. The way I'm seeing Crecia is as a
conflicted
mother figure - one who selfishly wants best for her child, but also wants best for her nation, and is struggling (and failing) to keep both.

Name a single instance where we were made to feel that Crecia is conflicted or wrong? From the start of the episode she is shown make all the right decisions. Is Crecia really failing? At the end of the episode, all the Charr leaders and the commander (for whatever reason) openly dislike Smodur.

"Wrong" is a bit subjective - that's part of the issue, I guess - but literally the first and last instance shows her as conflicted. Especially the moment when Smodur kills Cinder. She wants to bring Ryland back, but she protects Smodur from Ryland, because she doesn't want to lose Ryland and she doesn't want to lose the unity of the High Legions. And you can see the guilt in her facial expression during that cinematic (masterfully done imo), where she realizes just what she had done by protecting Smodur from Ryland.

So yes, she is failing. She's constantly trying to keep peace between the Imperators by playing both sides, but also clearly favors Malice which Smodur notices and increasingly agitates him. She tries to keep Ryland safe but also wants to end the war. She's trying to play the peacekeeper, and she fails - quite spectacularly at the end.

And "for whatever reason"? Smodur tricked the Commander to committing a literal war crime (bombing non-combatants), after already been seen executing POWs (another war crime by most standards), and at the end he personally executes another POW (again: war crime) which ended any chance of a peaceful resolution of the war. It's pretty damn obvious why the Commander are upset with Smodur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find it interesting that the charr have a concept of war crimes at all, although given how they villainise Gwen it's probably the typical hypocrisy of "when we do it to you it's doing what is necessary to win, but how dare you do it to us!"

Although I do wonder if there's some subtle fridge brilliance in it being Efram who uses the term. For all that the Flame Legion have been the bad guys up to now... they're probably the one legion that actually has the concept of noncombatants. Other legions... well, they have people who aren't necessarily in active frontline roles, but they're all expected to be able to fight if push comes to shove.

What really gets me with Smodur, though, is that he's been given an idiot ball wrapped in a villain ball. All of the "ruthless" things he's doing are actively detrimental to what he's setting out to do. We've already discussed killing prisoners in what is essentially a hearts and minds war, but let's look at that Searing Crystal thing. It proved to be pretty easy to find the main entrance there, and Petraj Overlook is in Legion hands more often then not. If the occupants aren't front-line troops, it's unlikely that they'd withstand an assault from the Commander with a bit of support from the Petraj garrison... which would allow the Searing Crystal to be used somewhere else, grant the potential to take prisoners and extract friendly agents within the research outpost, and maybe even offer the chance to capture whatever is being worked on in there.

If Smodur was ruthlessly practical in a way that made you uncomfortable but got results, that would be one thing. But, with the possible exception of executing deserters (something which, IIRC, even some modern militaries in countries that don't otherwise have the death penalty do), what Smodur is doing is stupid ruthless that's actively hindering his efforts to achieve his goals. Even if you took morality out of the equation altogether, he's doing the wrong thing.

(Note that Cinder isn't a deserter - she picked her side from the beginning.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Tazer.2157" said:There are so many problems with your statement. What you are suggesting is equivalent to a form of colonialism. Where one race decides whats best for the other race. This has happened in our history. I do not think GW2 needs to explore this side because it is complex, it needs time to be believable and it is very easy to mess up. The Charr have been bred for battle, they have killed, conquered and seen members of their warband fall. If change needs to happen, it should be the Charr that decide their fate. As a commander who is not a Charr and who only knows a single Charr, I should not be in a position to determine the future of the Charr. The sudden change in ones character is detrimental to the story and does not serve it. Game of thrones season 8 is a reminder that for change to happen, it cannot be done instantaneously.

Star trek is wonderful because of the diversity of the world and the stakes. In Star trek, no attempt was made to change the character of the Klingons. They were who they were. Every other way seemed alien to them the same way we humans perceive morality. I think the devs should follow a similar approach with the Charr. Keep the Charr unique and let them remain the ruthless, warmongering race they are. We do not need humans 2.0 in GW2 where everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya. One big happy family with the commander at the helm. That honestly makes the commander Emperor Palpatine.

When you say "their entire civilization is broken" you are looking at it from the perspective of a human. Our norms of what a civilization should be is due to our history, our religious beliefs and our culture. We cannot expect the Charr to have the same ideals as we do. That is impossible.

Having races that live by different ideals makes the world diverse. It is not diverse if everyone shares the same thought. The Olmakhan are special because they chose a different way of life from their Charr counterparts. Are we to judge which side is right and wrong? Is the commander now a supreme being who decides what the rules are? Again these can be explored but if they are, there are always two sides to the story and both must be given equal opportunity and the ultimate decision must be left to the player, not the writers. But a story like that is best suited for single player games and not a mmorpg.I am going to stop this before it goes further

  1. There is absolutely nothing colonialist about the Charr realizing their society is broken, and at least one of them trying to fix it. Colonialism would require an outside force coming in and making them change, this is purely an internal matter. The commander is making none of these changes, Crecia is.

  2. You are fundamentally wrong about the Klingons in Star Trek. In fact, its a pretty big point throughout The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 that the Klingon Empire is broken, and corrupt, and needs to change. Throughout both shows these corrupt elements are exposed and cut out, and it all comes to a head in Depp Space 9 when Ezri Dax tells Worf that the Klingon Empire is dying, and she believes it deserves to die, due to how corrupt it is, pointing out that Worf is the most honorable Klingon she knows, and even he just sits by and lets the corruption fester. This leads to Worf challenging the leader of the Klingon Empire, Gowron, and killing him in battle, and then handing the leadership of the Empire to the Klingon Martok, one of the few truly honorable Klingons, with the show heavily suggesting that Martok will lead the Klingons into a new age of actual honor, and cast aside the blood lust that has ruled Klingons since the Enterprise era. These sorts of large scale changes happen to not only the Klingons, but also the Cardassians, Ferengi, and Dominion. All of them start off with vastly different cultures then they end up with, and what they end up with is something closer to Federation(human) ideals, because all of their societies were shown to be broken as they were, and eventually it just broke down and change was forced. Hell, we know that the Klingons move so close to human ideals that they end up joining the Federation outright sometime in the future.

  3. It doesn't matter how Charr civilization developed, there are basic ideals of unalienable rights that are fundamentally intrinsic to all life. That Charr society allows people like Bangar, and Smodur, to exist, and allows them to throw away these intrinsic rights, means their society is broken, and we are seeing the result of that now. It should not be acceptable no matter the perspective,. Its telling that, in situations like those regarding children and fahrars, even after centuries of separating children from their parents to be put into the fahrars, and being told that you shouldn't really care or look up on your children, that we know MANY MANY Charr do, because even they are, at least subconsciously, aware that the entire system is dumb and broken to begin with. They are just so Stockholm Syndromed into accepting it few do anything about it. I honestly expect that, maybe not within the timeframe of GW2, but at some point in the future, everything that happens in this arc will lead to the breakdown and dismantling of Charr society as we know it currently because it simply cannot hold as is.

  4. The Olmakhan split off to escape the brutal persecution and discrimination of the Flame Legion they came from. The game makes no effort to show the side as anything other then black and white, because the situation was just that. The Flame Legion at the time was indisputably bad, and the Olmakhan left because they couldn't stand it, and are good for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I find the Klingon comparison to be faulty for another reason. The Klingon's value warriors above all else. This is touched upon in an Enterprise Episode (foreshadowing the TOS to TNG and onward shifts in Klingon society). A Lawyer says once he had great honor in the culture due to his post, as did skilled farmers, engineers, craftsmen, etc. But a shift turned to only warriors and glory in battle being sought, leading to those other roles, even as important as they are, deemed lesser.

The Charr on the other hand, while some warbands/groups (mainly blood legion) praise glory on the battlefield and victory in combat, they honor and support all roles. The farmer is just as important to the "war machine" or society as the warrior. The Engineers and smiths are just as vital as the book-keepers and supply officers. Hell, "Metal Legion" is important as a morale tool. Yes, chunks of their society are warmongering, violence craving fighters. But unlike the Klingons even those at the front understand the people back home allow them to do so.

Hell, in the new map (about the Fahrar stuff above) we are seeing young. barely "graduated" cubs being pushed into frontline combat. I noticed in a few places there is an "adult" charr with another one. The one is noticable smaller then their companion. At the heli-pad the one is talking about how he's eager for combat, his companion tells him he won't be after fighting. In one of the camps we see two blood legion soldiers lamenting the fact that the civil war has devolved into children killing children on the frontline. The prologue, and this one shows that the unified unchanging Charr society we've seen is fracturing from within, hard. Those that hate humans to the core are bunking next to a person who would sacrifice their life for a human to preserve the treaty and growing friendship. A blood legion warband helped defend Divinity's reach in support of the treaty, and now we see that Jennah has taken Logan from his role in the pact to lead a Seraph task force explicitly to repay that help to the legions. They helped save Divinity's reach at it's possibly darkest hour, and now humanity is repaying the Charr. Rytlock's lament after Aurene died about not even knowing his own children shows how his own ties to the culture are shifting. We see him and Crecia care deeply about their son, infront of Imperators. The highest levels of Charr society are starting to go "Screw the norms. This is our son, we are going to save him if we can. And we'll do everything we can to bring him back home."

This civil war is breaking everything the Charr know. Warbands split apart and fighting each other (The Charr PC? Finds their sparring partner in the base. The entire warband their rebuilt defected and you fight them as Cache keepers around the map). Blood versus blood, iron vs iron, ash vs ash, flame vs flame. A society built around loyalty, to your warband above yourself, to your legion above all else, is being faced with that shattered. If I'm loyal to Blood, do I stand with Bangar, my imperator? Or Crecia and Rytlock? Do I be loyal to the idea of the Charr above else, or my Legion as part of the united legions?

Everybody used to talk about how when the Dragons are gone, the Charr would turn against humans and the rest of the world. But now, we are presented a much more serious, and interesting perspective. They have first turned upon themselves, and even in the darkness of these days/weeks, who shows up, uninvited, unexpected, to present material, military, and magic support help? Humanity.

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...