The story ruins Jormag rising(spoilers)

[White Kitsunee.4620]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

I'm gonna go ahead and say that's what makes the Charr interesting and a well fleshed out race.Having ever race just be a different flavor of human is boring. And more importantly it will lead every race down the same path.

As far as examples go in other games: Orcs in WoW.Orc's player fantasy and what they are actually by lore are is so messed up and mis matched that they have made 5 separate attempts to make moves towards a deeper alliance with the humans of that game, but can't because that's opposite the player fantasy.And this is all because: Orc's are basically just humans with a different backstory, meaning as the story progresses Orcs would naturally soften up as more connections with other races were made.

This is the reason I love the Charr so much.At least at a social level they are so different from humans that its impossible to mistake one from the other.And whose to say interesting stories and well written characters can't come out of that? Good writing can solve almost anything my friend.

[Tazer.2157]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized.

You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up.

The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race.

[Loesh.4697]

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized.

You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up.

The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race.

I didn't say no one would want to play as such a race, to the contrary! I actually know a handful of people who do want to play that kind of race...specifically as a way to live out a power fantasy where they can freely maim other people and in a few cases, justify making an ethnostate. Make of that what you will.

What i'm saying is if you're playing an antagonist, well you're going to face consequences. Which the Charr are, their society is completely unraveling because to be perfectly candid it's been built on a foundation of garbage for centuries, and no there's a progressive movement inside that group that are seeing them literally self destruct as is the inevitable end point that society and going 'Oh yeah, this is kind of bad.' You call it humanization, I call it having common sense.

Nevermind the fact that I think the very notion that the Charr weren't attached to humanity in the real world already as silly in and of itself. They're a mashup of the Roman Empire and Mongolia down to the naming conventions, and experiencing a similar shift in their culture as to those two groups. How anyone can look at World of Warcraft Orcs, a race that literally came from a different dimension after dealing with demons and having a 200 year era of peaceful shamantic culture( and even before that, were in fact portions of a much greater elemental entity designed to defeat Dreanors Overgrowth.) and think they are more human then that is beyond me.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

@Fueki.4753 said:The Meta is equally bad in my opinions.The visuals of this half map were to only decent part for me - and only the visuals.

Anet, remove the snipers and damaging floor already.

It wasn't fun in The Desolation, it wasn't fun in Vabbi, and strangely enough, it still isn't fun in Drizzlewood. Maybe third time's the charm for whoever is responsible for this.

[borgs.6103]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Ironic you're saying that about the Charr when it's the humans who were the invaders and colonists of Tyria. Literally aliens from another planet.Also, they Charr were at war among themselves before the Khan-Ur united them. Then they went on and on conquering the happy lands of Tyria until they met the humans. Who assasinated their Khan-Ur. Which led to the founding of the Four Legions. Thanks, humans.

[Loesh.4697]

@borgs.6103 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Ironic you're saying that about the Charr when

it's the humans

who were the invaders and colonists of Tyria. Literally aliens from another planet.Also, they Charr

were

at war among themselves before the Khan-Ur united them. Then they went on and on conquering the happy lands of Tyria until they met the humans. Who assasinated their Khan-Ur. Which led to the founding of the Four Legions. Thanks, humans.

You mean the Charr who themselves invaded and colonized Ascalon, displacing the local grawl and dwarves? the dwarves who wound up allying with humanity against their common foe? Like yeah there are races humans wronged. Specifically the Tengu and the Centaurs, but nobody mourned the fracturing of the Charr empire, especially since when humans weren't colonizers they behaved more like migrants and tended to be less, you know, insane.

[Tazer.2157]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized.

You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up.

The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race.

I didn't say no one would want to play as such a race, to the contrary! I actually know a handful of people who do want to play that kind of race...specifically as a way to live out a power fantasy where they can freely maim other people and in a few cases, justify making an ethnostate. Make of that what you will.

What i'm saying is if you're playing an antagonist, well you're going to face consequences. Which the Charr are, their society is completely unraveling because to be perfectly candid it's been built on a foundation of garbage for centuries, and no there's a progressive movement inside that group that are seeing them literally self destruct as is the inevitable end point that society and going 'Oh yeah, this is kind of bad.' You call it humanization, I call it having

common sense.

Nevermind the fact that I think the very notion that the Charr weren't attached to humanity in the real world already as silly in and of itself. They're a mashup of the Roman Empire and Mongolia down to the naming conventions, and experiencing a similar shift in their culture as to those two groups. How anyone can look at World of Warcraft Orcs, a race that literally came from a different dimension after dealing with demons and having a 200 year era of peaceful shamantic culture( and even before that, were in fact portions of a much greater elemental entity designed to defeat Dreanors Overgrowth.) and think they are more human then that is beyond me.

There are many differences between the Roman Empire and the Mongols. The Roman Empire had an army but they were also the cultural and the trading hub of Europe at that time. Unlike the Mongols, the Roman society also placed importance on art, culture, engineering, etc. The Huns and the Mongols are much more similar being nomadic warring tribes. Looking at the Charr, they are a very advanced scientifically and not exactly nomadic even though their culture is militaristic. Even going by our history, this combination makes the Charr OP and highly unlikely to fall. Borrowing from our history, the Romans did not bring upon their own downfall. There are various reasons why the western Roman Empire fell which I am not going to get into. While I am nor familiar with the history of the Mongol Empire, I do know that the Huns could not conquer Rome and were driven back by a much stronger military civ. Stronger civs have always beaten the weaker ones.

This cycle continued until the end of WW2 when Europe was devastated by war and had to give up their colonies in Asia and Africa. So your notion that the Charr will destroy themselves is not true because we have not even seen anything like that happening in our history.

[voltaicbore.8012]

@"Bast.7253" said:Yet we've spent the majority of the story pressing f on npc's, filling bars, and having norn spirits introduced as two liners via adventures/events for the sole purpose of using them to explain a convoluted mastery system or power Braham's spotlight.

I felt the exact same way about the Spirits, and it stings so deeply. I'm not a Norn main or anything, but I do like them and specifically made a Raven-themed Norn character for the Saga. Huge, huge, huge disappointment. Being able to speak with Wolf was such a watershed moment... and it was so small, un-epic, and pretty much like any expository NPC. It's only been downhill from there with the Spirits of the Wild (with perhaps the notable exception of Wolverine's sick burns on Braham).

Nowhere does this sting as badly as it does with Owl. Owl, the one Spirit who stood against Jormag. It might not be the absolute pinnacle of Norn values, but being the sole guardian deity of a society to stand against her people's nemesis in the face of certain death - does this not deserve honor among the Norn? I get the feeling that there won't really be any recovering from the ludicrous waste of Owl storytelling opportunity that we got in the Saga.

Hopefully we can start getting into more interesting plot points now that the Charr conflict seems to have hit its climax. It just makes me wonder what the entire point of the Charr conflict or the frost legion was. I suppose to introduce us to Jormag but Charr seems like an odd choice. Also seems odd that Bangar would be the one harnessing the spirit magic, or the first to do so to awaken Jormag when we've had presumably generations of Svanir that could have achieved the same result. Why Bangar? Now he's just a "voice" and Ryland is a champion with the frost legion troop and dominion forces being diminished/eradicated. So Ryland is pretty much going to just be a standard dragon champion now? Why him?

I know there's still some room left in the saga, but I'm pretty sure there's just not enough space left to really bring the norn back front and center. If I had to guess, "bringing the norn back into the spotlight" = "making Braham shout angry things at Ryland while the Commander does the real fighting, again" is how it works at ANet. I am NOT looking forward to that happening... two uncompelling characters that are nowhere near as interesting as their parents spouting some trite nonsense.

It just feels like by the end, looking back, it won't really have any payoff or explanation. It just feels like filler. It all just feels really shallow at the moment. We have these 1 hour story segments and so little gets delivered during them. It's just been banter and fffffff in between bar fill-ups and escorts.

It feels that way because it is that way. I refuse to believe ANet ever really thought of Icebrood Saga as anything other than living world, just with different branding to buy itself some time with regards to people who wanted another expansion.

[Loesh.4697]

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized.

You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up.

The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race.

I didn't say no one would want to play as such a race, to the contrary! I actually know a handful of people who do want to play that kind of race...specifically as a way to live out a power fantasy where they can freely maim other people and in a few cases, justify making an ethnostate. Make of that what you will.

What i'm saying is if you're playing an antagonist, well you're going to face consequences. Which the Charr are, their society is completely unraveling because to be perfectly candid it's been built on a foundation of garbage for centuries, and no there's a progressive movement inside that group that are seeing them literally self destruct as is the inevitable end point that society and going 'Oh yeah, this is kind of bad.' You call it humanization, I call it having

common sense.

Nevermind the fact that I think the very notion that the Charr weren't attached to humanity in the real world already as silly in and of itself. They're a mashup of the Roman Empire and Mongolia down to the naming conventions, and experiencing a similar shift in their culture as to those two groups. How anyone can look at World of Warcraft Orcs, a race that literally came from a different dimension after dealing with demons and having a 200 year era of peaceful shamantic culture( and even before that, were in fact portions of a much greater elemental entity designed to defeat Dreanors Overgrowth.) and think they are more human then that is beyond me.

There are many differences between the Roman Empire and the Mongols. The Roman Empire had an army but they were also the cultural and the trading hub of Europe at that time. Unlike the Mongols, the Roman society also placed importance on art, culture, engineering, etc. The Huns and the Mongols are much more similar being nomadic warring tribes. Looking at the Charr, they are a very advanced scientifically and not exactly nomadic even though their culture is militaristic. Even going by our history, this combination makes the Charr OP and highly unlikely to fall. Borrowing from our history, the Romans did not bring upon their own downfall. There are various reasons why the western Roman Empire fell which I am not going to get into. While I am nor familiar with the history of the Mongol Empire, I do know that the Huns could not conquer Rome and were driven back by a much stronger military civ. Stronger civs have always beaten the weaker ones.

This cycle continued until the end of WW2 when Europe was devastated by war and had to give up their colonies in Asia and Africa. So your notion that the Charr will destroy themselves is not true because we have not even seen anything like that happening in our history.

Well one: Mashup, like I said, prehistory Charr are the Mongolian Empire, hence the Khan Ur. Most of those themes have given way to more Roman ones, but elements remain.

Second: I point you to the Year of Four, Five, and Six Emperors as well as the kerfuffle of Julius Caeser becoming Emperor and the ensuing civil war of his death, killing many valuable Romans like Cato the Younger in the process. The Roman Empire did collapse due to many things, but their implosion on a government level was definitely a contributor, the corruption of the Praetorian Guard and the squabbling of an increasingly incompetent(And sometimes just plain insane.) set of Emperors was causing the Empire to degrade from the top down. This is another one of those Mongolian parallels as well, as when the Khan of Mongolia died the infighting between his children and potential leaders caused them collapse from the inside out.

To put it simply: You have to go into why the Roman Empire began to degrade or you're oversimplifying.

[borgs.6103]

@Loesh.4697 said:You mean the Charr who themselves invaded and colonized Ascalon, displacing the local grawl and dwarves? the dwarves who wound up allying with humanity against their common foe? Like yeah there are races humans wronged. Specifically the Tengu and the Centaurs, but nobody mourned the fracturing of the Charr empire, especially since when humans weren't colonizers they behaved more like migrants and tended to be less, you know, insane.Yep! The very same!And less insane? Remember the Foefire? A human king literally doomed his people to eternal suffering, never getting peace just because he doesn't want to lose. I think I'd rather have the Charr murder me than forever stay a ghost.

[Loesh.4697]

@borgs.6103 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:You mean the Charr who themselves invaded and colonized Ascalon, displacing the local grawl and dwarves? the dwarves who wound up allying with humanity against their common foe? Like yeah there are races humans wronged. Specifically the Tengu and the Centaurs, but

nobody

mourned the fracturing of the Charr empire, especially since when humans weren't colonizers they behaved more like migrants and tended to be less, you know, insane.Yep! The very same!And less insane? Remember the Foefire? A human king literally doomed his people to eternal suffering, never getting peace just because he doesn't want to lose. I think I'd rather have the Charr murder me than forever stay a ghost.

Considerably less insane when you remember that the reason the Foefire happened was because the Charr pledged themselves to a demon god that was threatening to drive the world into an endless pit of pain and torment, including giving those who fought against and FOR Abaddon a fate even worse then death by condemning them to the Realm of Torment lest they corrupt our reality, just ask Emberspire.

Until the humans killed Abaddon and undid the corruption and allowed the souls to go free, of course.

[borgs.6103]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@borgs.6103 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:You mean the Charr who themselves invaded and colonized Ascalon, displacing the local grawl and dwarves? the dwarves who wound up allying with humanity against their common foe? Like yeah there are races humans wronged. Specifically the Tengu and the Centaurs, but

nobody

mourned the fracturing of the Charr empire, especially since when humans weren't colonizers they behaved more like migrants and tended to be less, you know, insane.Yep! The very same!And less insane? Remember the Foefire? A human king literally doomed his people to eternal suffering, never getting peace just because he doesn't want to lose. I think I'd rather have the Charr murder me than forever stay a ghost.

Considerably less insane when you remember that the reason the Foefire happened was because the Charr pledged themselves to a demon god that was threatening to drive the world into an endless pit of pain and torment, including giving those who fought against and FOR Abaddon a fate even worse then death by condemning them to the Realm of Torment lest they corrupt our reality, just ask Emberspire.

Until the humans killed Abaddon and undid the corruption and allowed the souls to go free, of course.

That wouldn't happen if the Pantheon of Human Gods and their merry worshipers never set foot on Tyria.

Bottom line - Every atrocity the Charr have done, the humans did worse or at fault.

[Loesh.4697]

@borgs.6103 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@borgs.6103 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:You mean the Charr who themselves invaded and colonized Ascalon, displacing the local grawl and dwarves? the dwarves who wound up allying with humanity against their common foe? Like yeah there are races humans wronged. Specifically the Tengu and the Centaurs, but

nobody

mourned the fracturing of the Charr empire, especially since when humans weren't colonizers they behaved more like migrants and tended to be less, you know, insane.Yep! The very same!And less insane? Remember the Foefire? A human king literally doomed his people to eternal suffering, never getting peace just because he doesn't want to lose. I think I'd rather have the Charr murder me than forever stay a ghost.

Considerably less insane when you remember that the reason the Foefire happened was because the Charr pledged themselves to a demon god that was threatening to drive the world into an endless pit of pain and torment, including giving those who fought against and FOR Abaddon a fate even worse then death by condemning them to the Realm of Torment lest they corrupt our reality, just ask Emberspire.

Until the humans killed Abaddon and undid the corruption and allowed the souls to go free, of course.

That wouldn't happen if the Pantheon of Human Gods and their merry worshipers never set foot on Tyria.

Bottom line - Every atrocity the Charr have done, the humans did worse or at fault.

Yeah no, while humans did participate in mass killings of individual races at certain points: See Palawa Joko and the Centaurs, mass killings were never institutionalized on the scale of the Charr where mass killings were common and accepted practice. Even during the Tengu Wars some humans reached out despite the fact that the Tengu themselves were responsible for a fair bit of the racism of that conflict and had performed their own horrific acts. The Charr have only recently been strongarmed into peace with other Tyrian races.

Abaddon was rejected by humanity early on, the Legions embraced him because all they cared about was power and, how did you put it? the fear of losing. So they clapped their women chains, began ritually sacrificing people en mass, and nearly destroyed Tyria. Just because Abaddon would not be there if the Gods never came to Tyria doesn't mean you can pass the buck for the Legions choices on to humanity. That's not how responsibility works.

[Sajuuk Khar.1509]

@"Tazer.2157" said:So what fundamentals are you talking about? Even today, human culture is not uniform. Certain things might be perfectly acceptable in some regions while being unacceptable in others. So if we humans are not uniform even after thousands of years of residing in the same planet, I don’t think there are fundamentals that society follows universally. We do not even find some of our past practices acceptable today and what we find acceptable today might not be acceptable 100 years from now. Our environment and history define us.That if a species was driven by nothing but more war, said species would have inevitably driven themselves to extinction long before ever reaching the level of development the Charr have. War is always a losing scenario, it does nothing but kill, and destroy. Unless the Charr could mass clone themselves, they would have died off ages ago due to population loss.

Not to mention, even a society driven largely by war like the Charr would still need people from all walks of life in order to support that life style. They would still need farmer to grow food, people in mills to process said food, engineers to design new things to build, medics to patch the wounded, teachers to teach the new generation, miners to dig up raw minerals, people working in smithies to process said materials, etc. etc. Which in turns means they would have a wide range of perspectives on various issues from all of these walks of life, and, in turn, would have large amount of internal disagreement over if the Charr society is the way it should be.

Leading to..... exactly what we are seeing now with various Charr going "hmm... maybe this society of war and death kind of sucks". As you mention yourself, humans are not totally uniform after thousands of years.... likewise, the Charr wouldn't, and literally couldn't, be a totally uniform peoples either, so this idea where the Charr should never change, never question their warlike attitudes, never have any seconds thoughts, and never want to change themselves for the better, doesn't even make sense within the context of fiction.

[Tazer.2157]

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized.

You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up.

The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race.

I didn't say no one would want to play as such a race, to the contrary! I actually know a handful of people who do want to play that kind of race...specifically as a way to live out a power fantasy where they can freely maim other people and in a few cases, justify making an ethnostate. Make of that what you will.

What i'm saying is if you're playing an antagonist, well you're going to face consequences. Which the Charr are, their society is completely unraveling because to be perfectly candid it's been built on a foundation of garbage for centuries, and no there's a progressive movement inside that group that are seeing them literally self destruct as is the inevitable end point that society and going 'Oh yeah, this is kind of bad.' You call it humanization, I call it having

common sense.

Nevermind the fact that I think the very notion that the Charr weren't attached to humanity in the real world already as silly in and of itself. They're a mashup of the Roman Empire and Mongolia down to the naming conventions, and experiencing a similar shift in their culture as to those two groups. How anyone can look at World of Warcraft Orcs, a race that literally came from a different dimension after dealing with demons and having a 200 year era of peaceful shamantic culture( and even before that, were in fact portions of a much greater elemental entity designed to defeat Dreanors Overgrowth.) and think they are more human then that is beyond me.

There are many differences between the Roman Empire and the Mongols. The Roman Empire had an army but they were also the cultural and the trading hub of Europe at that time. Unlike the Mongols, the Roman society also placed importance on art, culture, engineering, etc. The Huns and the Mongols are much more similar being nomadic warring tribes. Looking at the Charr, they are a very advanced scientifically and not exactly nomadic even though their culture is militaristic. Even going by our history, this combination makes the Charr OP and highly unlikely to fall. Borrowing from our history, the Romans did not bring upon their own downfall. There are various reasons why the western Roman Empire fell which I am not going to get into. While I am nor familiar with the history of the Mongol Empire, I do know that the Huns could not conquer Rome and were driven back by a much stronger military civ. Stronger civs have always beaten the weaker ones.

This cycle continued until the end of WW2 when Europe was devastated by war and had to give up their colonies in Asia and Africa. So your notion that the Charr will destroy themselves is not true because we have not even seen anything like that happening in our history.

Well one: Mashup, like I said, prehistory Charr are the Mongolian Empire, hence the Khan Ur. Most of those themes have given way to more Roman ones, but elements remain.

Second: I point you to the Year of Four, Five, and Six Emperors as well as the kerfuffle of Julius Caeser becoming Emperor and the ensuing civil war of his death, killing many valuable Romans like Cato the Younger in the process. The Roman Empire did collapse due to many things, but their implosion on a government level was

definitely

a contributor, the corruption of the Praetorian Guard and the squabbling of an increasingly incompetent(And sometimes just plain insane.) set of Emperors was trying the Empire to degrade from the top down. This is another one of those Mongolian parallels as well, as when the Khan of Mongolia died the infighting between his children and potential leaders caused them collapse from the inside out.

To put it simply: You

have

to go into why the Roman Empire began to degrade or you're oversimplifying.

The Charr have a much stronger hierarchy of power than the Roman Empire ever did. The Charr also are very different from the Romans. Their entire society is build to respect the Khan-ur. Stop trying to compare the Romans with the Charr. They are barely anything alike. Furthermore, the four Charr legions have not shown to be fighting for territory and we have not seen any infighting between them.

So from the lore so far, we cannot say that the Charr will destroy themselves when they seem to be perfectly fine. Their pursuit for strength have suited them. They are one of the stronger races in the lore. But all of a sudden in this saga we are told that the Charr society is on a path to destroy themselves? Again I do not know why people are drawing parallels between Star trek, the Romans, the Mongols, when the Charr have their own lore and history.

[Loesh.4697]

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Loesh.4697 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:

Flawed from a human perspective. You are looking at the Charr as a human in the year 2019. Our attitudes today came because of our past. We learn from the past and we develop as a result of that. This cannot be said for either Tyria or the Charr.

If a race has been bred for war, they know nothing other than that. And like I said stop making tyria planet earth.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and

severely

lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them.

Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists

by default

and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that?

Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized.

You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up.

The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race.

I didn't say no one would want to play as such a race, to the contrary! I actually know a handful of people who do want to play that kind of race...specifically as a way to live out a power fantasy where they can freely maim other people and in a few cases, justify making an ethnostate. Make of that what you will.

What i'm saying is if you're playing an antagonist, well you're going to face consequences. Which the Charr are, their society is completely unraveling because to be perfectly candid it's been built on a foundation of garbage for centuries, and no there's a progressive movement inside that group that are seeing them literally self destruct as is the inevitable end point that society and going 'Oh yeah, this is kind of bad.' You call it humanization, I call it having

common sense.

Nevermind the fact that I think the very notion that the Charr weren't attached to humanity in the real world already as silly in and of itself. They're a mashup of the Roman Empire and Mongolia down to the naming conventions, and experiencing a similar shift in their culture as to those two groups. How anyone can look at World of Warcraft Orcs, a race that literally came from a different dimension after dealing with demons and having a 200 year era of peaceful shamantic culture( and even before that, were in fact portions of a much greater elemental entity designed to defeat Dreanors Overgrowth.) and think they are more human then that is beyond me.

There are many differences between the Roman Empire and the Mongols. The Roman Empire had an army but they were also the cultural and the trading hub of Europe at that time. Unlike the Mongols, the Roman society also placed importance on art, culture, engineering, etc. The Huns and the Mongols are much more similar being nomadic warring tribes. Looking at the Charr, they are a very advanced scientifically and not exactly nomadic even though their culture is militaristic. Even going by our history, this combination makes the Charr OP and highly unlikely to fall. Borrowing from our history, the Romans did not bring upon their own downfall. There are various reasons why the western Roman Empire fell which I am not going to get into. While I am nor familiar with the history of the Mongol Empire, I do know that the Huns could not conquer Rome and were driven back by a much stronger military civ. Stronger civs have always beaten the weaker ones.

This cycle continued until the end of WW2 when Europe was devastated by war and had to give up their colonies in Asia and Africa. So your notion that the Charr will destroy themselves is not true because we have not even seen anything like that happening in our history.

Well one: Mashup, like I said, prehistory Charr are the Mongolian Empire, hence the Khan Ur. Most of those themes have given way to more Roman ones, but elements remain.

Second: I point you to the Year of Four, Five, and Six Emperors as well as the kerfuffle of Julius Caeser becoming Emperor and the ensuing civil war of his death, killing many valuable Romans like Cato the Younger in the process. The Roman Empire did collapse due to many things, but their implosion on a government level was

definitely

a contributor, the corruption of the Praetorian Guard and the squabbling of an increasingly incompetent(And sometimes just plain insane.) set of Emperors was trying the Empire to degrade from the top down. This is another one of those Mongolian parallels as well, as when the Khan of Mongolia died the infighting between his children and potential leaders caused them collapse from the inside out.

To put it simply: You

have

to go into why the Roman Empire began to degrade or you're oversimplifying.

The Charr have a much stronger hierarchy of power than the Roman Empire ever did. The Charr also are very different from the Romans. Their entire society is build to respect the Khan-ur. Stop trying to compare the Romans with the Charr. They are barely anything alike. Furthermore, the four Charr legions have not shown to be fighting for territory and we have not seen any infighting between them.

So from the lore so far, we cannot say that the Charr will destroy themselves when they seem to be perfectly fine. Their pursuit for strength have suited them. They are one of the stronger races in the lore. But all of a sudden in this saga we are told that the Charr society is on a path to destroy themselves? Again I do not know why people are drawing parallels between Star trek, the Romans, the Mongols, when the Charr have their own lore and history.

That's actually incorrect. The Charr empire began to implode for around 800 years after the Khan Urs death. This is why there's so few historical records that predate the Flame Legion beyond their tributary records, the Khan Ur's death triggered something similar to the crisis of the third century where competing generals(Which in this case, much like Genghis Khan were made up of his blood relatives.) began to kill one another to secure the throne. Up to and including the point where there armies would violently clash, which lead to a thousand year losing streak where humanity pushed them to the edge of what is now the modern Blood Legion Homelands.

That only stopped with Abaddon, when the Flame Legion deceived or convinced the various city states with the power they now wielded from the volcano of Hrangmar, namely the Titans. They chained their women, killed political dissidents, and conjured the Searing when it became abundantly clear they were still going to lose even with their unity and the humans engrossed in their own civil wars. Consequently i'v never actually viewed the Charr as an indomitable military force, both before and after the Searing they lost battles to humans who were better at defensive warfare and access to a large amount of magic. Eventually humanity killed the titans and instigated a civil war by releasing Pyre Fierceshot(The Charr who is the basis for their modern society.) from captivity. While humans wound up losing Rin, they gained territory in southern Ascalon, which when combined with the Charrs new fear of magic due to the foefire meant they had an advantage over the Legions again. Infighting continued between Imperators but most were focused on the Flame Legion who were as powerful as the other three together, eventually they abandoned Ebonhawke and by the modern day they surrendered all the land south of Twin Sisters crossing.

No more Flame Legion challenging them,, no more Kralk, means of course they would go back to targeting humanity and each other. It isn't something we're just 'told', it has a thousand years of precedent!

[Tazer.2157]

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@"Tazer.2157" said:So what fundamentals are you talking about? Even today, human culture is not uniform. Certain things might be perfectly acceptable in some regions while being unacceptable in others. So if we humans are not uniform even after thousands of years of residing in the same planet, I don’t think there are fundamentals that society follows universally. We do not even find some of our past practices acceptable today and what we find acceptable today might not be acceptable 100 years from now. Our environment and history define us.That if a species was driven by nothing but more war, said species would have inevitably driven themselves to extinction long before ever reaching the level of development the Charr have. War is always a losing scenario, it does nothing but kill, and destroy. Unless the Charr could mass clone themselves, they would have died off ages ago due to population loss.

Not to mention, even a society driven largely by war like the Charr would still need people from all walks of life in order to support that life style. They would still need farmer to grow food, people in mills to process said food, engineers to design new things to build, medics to patch the wounded, teachers to teach the new generation, miners to dig up raw minerals, people working in smithies to process said materials, etc. etc. Which in turns means they would have a wide range of perspectives on various issues from all of these walks of life, and, in turn, would have large amount of internal disagreement over if the Charr society is the way it should be.

Leading to..... exactly what we are seeing now with various Charr going "hmm... maybe this society of war and death kind of sucks". As you mention yourself, humans are not totally uniform after thousands of years.... likewise, the Charr wouldn't, and literally couldn't, be a totally uniform peoples either, so this idea where the Charr should never change, never question their warlike attitudes, never have any seconds thoughts, and never want to change themselves for the better, doesn't even make sense within the context of fiction.

I can't even do this anymore. Let us stick to Tyria and what we know of it. The Charr are very advanced technologically. They have tanks, helicopters, turrets. Only the Asura are as technologically as competent as the Charr. So if the Charr was to go to war with the other races, chances are they will win. They are much better equipped for war and trained for war than the other races. Second, we do not see any infighting between the four legions. They always seem to work together and function as a part of Charr society.

The Charr do have farmers, miners, engineers. We see them while questing in Ascalon. In fact the engineering profession in game is learned from the Charr. The game tells us so far that the Charr have been a successful race. These are not a race living in mud huts like the Orcs in WoW. This is a race that I think holds the most territory. They have been nothing but successful. Why would they need to change when their formula has worked so far? Unlike the humans, the Charr have been bred for war from a very young age. They know no other way of life to "change". Please stop comparing Tyria with the real world. Tyria has its own history and lore. Stick to the lore of the game!

All the arguments supporting the change to the Charr are only drawing parallels between the real world. None of them ever even refer to the lore in game. The history of the Charr in Tyria define them. There is nothing in their history that mandates any change to their way of life.

[Loesh.4697]

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:So what fundamentals are you talking about? Even today, human culture is not uniform. Certain things might be perfectly acceptable in some regions while being unacceptable in others. So if we humans are not uniform even after thousands of years of residing in the same planet, I don’t think there are fundamentals that society follows universally. We do not even find some of our past practices acceptable today and what we find acceptable today might not be acceptable 100 years from now. Our environment and history define us.That if a species was driven by nothing but more war, said species would have inevitably driven themselves to extinction long before ever reaching the level of development the Charr have. War is always a losing scenario, it does nothing but kill, and destroy. Unless the Charr could mass clone themselves, they would have died off ages ago due to population loss.

Not to mention, even a society driven largely by war like the Charr would still need people from all walks of life in order to support that life style. They would still need farmer to grow food, people in mills to process said food, engineers to design new things to build, medics to patch the wounded, teachers to teach the new generation, miners to dig up raw minerals, people working in smithies to process said materials, etc. etc. Which in turns means they would have a wide range of perspectives on various issues from all of these walks of life, and, in turn, would have large amount of internal disagreement over if the Charr society is the way it should be.

Leading to..... exactly what we are seeing now with various Charr going "hmm... maybe this society of war and death kind of sucks". As you mention yourself, humans are not totally uniform after thousands of years.... likewise, the Charr wouldn't, and literally couldn't, be a totally uniform peoples either, so this idea where the Charr should never change, never question their warlike attitudes, never have any seconds thoughts, and never want to change themselves for the better, doesn't even make sense within the context of fiction.

I can't even do this anymore. Let us stick to Tyria and what we know of it. The Charr are very advanced technologically. They have tanks, helicopters, turrets. Only the Asura are as technologically as competent as the Charr. So if the Charr was to go to war with the other races, chances are they will win. They are much better equipped for war and trained for war than the other races. Second, we do not see any infighting between the four legions. They always seem to work together and function as a part of Charr society.

The Charr do have farmers, miners, engineers. We see them while questing in Ascalon. In fact the engineering profession in game is learned from the Charr. The game tells us so far that the Charr have been a successful race. These are not a race living in mud huts like the Orcs in WoW. This is a race that I think holds the most territory. They have been nothing but successful. Why would they need to change when their formula has worked so far? Unlike the humans, the Charr have been bred for war from a very young age. They know no other way of life to "change". Please stop comparing Tyria with the real world. Tyria has its own history and lore. Stick to the lore of the game!

All the arguments supporting the change to the Charr are only drawing parallels between the real world. None of them ever even refer to the lore in game. The history of the Charr in Tyria define them. There is nothing in their history that mandates any change to their way of life.

Also while i'm here: The Charr are technologically advanced, aside from Flame Legion they are pretty bad at magic, and even Flame Legions main power source is...flame. Which is why the Charr lost so many battles even after the Gods exodus, they couldn't say, conjure a legion of zombies like Nola Shepherd to eat their enemies alive.

Hence why the assumption the Charr will win every fight with other races is actually quite flawed. They are only advanced in one type of warfare and historically disintegrate when faced with another.

[Sajuuk Khar.1509]

@"Bast.7253" said:Hopefully we can start getting into more interesting plot points now that the Charr conflict seems to have hit its climax. It just makes me wonder what the entire point of the Charr conflict or the frost legion was.If you need to ask what the point of the Charr conflict was, then you haven't been paying attention to Guild Wars 2's plot or background.... seemingly ever.

The point of the Charr conflict was, as mentioned all the way back in Bound by Blood, to ask the question "the Charr have always had enemies, but what happens when they don't". It exists to showcase the fundamental problem in a society consumed by the idea that war is the end all be all. Specifically, when said culture runs out of things to fight, they will invariably turn on themselves, and begin consuming themselves in that war. And to show us how some Charr that have seen how broken Charr society can be beforehand, such as Crecia, Rytlock, Efram, using this opportunity to try to make things better for their species.

This ties into Charr lore all the way back to the rise of the first Khan-Ur, their actions in GW1, the actions of Pyre Fierceshot in EoTN, the overthrowing of the Flame Legion, the Olmakhan's split, Rytlock always having been stated to be a bit different then other charr due to how much time he spent with non-Charr. This entire thing is the logical culmination of Guild War's narrative going back to GW1's release back in 2005. If you have to ask what the point was, then I really don't know what to say except you seemingly can't follow any sort of complex narrative.

[Sajuuk Khar.1509]

@Tazer.2157 said:Second, we do not see any infighting between the four legions. They always seem to work together and function as a part of Charr society.Except this is complete nonsense. There has been infighting among the different tribes of Charr since before the Khan-Ur. Hell, the Khan-Ur rose to power by uniting the warring tribes of Charr. And we have seen, all throughout Guild wars 2, those tribes, now Legions, infighting among each other. The hundred+ years of fighting the Flame Legion being the biggest example, but we also see all throughout the core game that Blood, Iron, and Ash, are always trying to sabotage, and one up each other, and that members of each Legion are systemically, and culturally, racist against the other Legions, treating themselves as superior, while the other Legion are inferior.

There is deep, systemic, cultural racism and division among Charr society, due to the Legions constantly pitting themselves against each other. They only have some unity because they hated everyone else more then they hated each other, so loosely allied to fight everyone else. This is also a key factor in why the Olmakhan left in the first place.

None of them ever even refer to the lore in game. The history of the Charr in Tyria define them. There is nothing in their history that mandates any change to their way of life.All of these arguments tie directly into the lore of the game. You know, the same lore that has constantly shown the Charr to be a horribly self destructive species, with constant civil wars, infighting, large amounts of people getting abused and treated like trash for being disabled, or Gladium. Entire sections of Charr splitting off and going to remote places just to try to get away from how broken the whole thing is.

Yeah man, there is no in-lore reason for the charr to change..... except the entirety of Charr lore.

[Funky.4861]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Funky.4861 said:The only female villain i can recall was Faolain, and i really liked her both before and after her turning.You don't recall Scarlet?

Ofc i recall Scarlett, but she doesn't count because she was an overpowered plot device to drive the story (how she was written reminds me of Batmans' plot armour).

It seems that we are only allowed to voice one kind of opinion too, as posts which contradict the narrative are being removed.

[Its Nerfing Time.1495]

@Tazer.2157 said:

@Sir Alric.5078 said:

@Tazer.2157 said:Once again not surprisingly the story is the weakest element in the episode and quite frankly spoils the entire episode. So well done. After you retconned and antagonized Smodur, you’ve killed him off in a similar manner. Also after building up Bangar, this bad kitten of a Charr who has always been ahead of you, who has rallied troops to his side, who convinced Ryland to attack Almorra, you’ve collared him and put him in a cage. Just why? Please just go ahead and kill Bangar off because he clearly doesn’t not belong in this sad excuse for a story. Let him and Smodur be erased from memory and have a peaceful afterlife far away from this dreadful story. To Smodur and Bangar, two bad kitten Charr who have been badly written. May you both Rest In Peace.

I see nothing wrong with what happened to Bangar. The fool actually thought he could turn the Ice Elder Dragon into his personal pet. As if a being that has been around for at least 20.000 years (if not more) and has contributed to the genocide of countless races would all of a sudden submit itself to an egomaniac cat. Turning him into a mouthpiece after blatantly discarding him for Ryland was Jormag's way to remind everyone about who's boss. Bangar got what he deserved and he can only blame himself for that.

Except that Bangar has outsmarted the commander at every move. Bangar was the one the legions looked up to. Many Charr followed him through thick and thin. Jormag tells Ryland that he’s got elements of his mom and dad and that is one of the reasons for making him champion. Except that is complete nonsense because Bangar outsmarted both Rytlock and Crecia. At the beginning Bangar even has Crecia wrapped around his finger. So unless Jormag is looking for a weakling, we have a conflict from what was shown in earlier episodes. Ryland was clearly shown to be weaker and compliant to Bangar even sparring with Almorra and having no problems even after Bangar killed her. All now all of a sudden he goes against Bangar? There is good story telling and then there is story telling just for the shock element and this reminds me of the final season of game of thrones. Also to add more pain to injury they put Bangar in the eye of the north and there is also an achievement where you need to visit him for 10 days. No where has anything like this been done. A Charr chained, unable to talk, caged and humiliated for 10 days and on display for all to see. I wouldn’t wish that to my worst enemy. Even Garrosh in world of Warcraft got a better ending than this.

plot armour isn't outsmarting the commander.

Bangar was a tool, and has a tools end.

[Fueki.4753]

@Funky.4861 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Funky.4861 said:The only female villain i can recall was Faolain, and i really liked her both before and after her turning.You don't recall Scarlet?

Ofc i recall Scarlett, but she doesn't count because she was an overpowered plot device to drive the story (how she was written reminds me of Batmans' plot armour).

It seems that we are only allowed to voice one kind of opinion too, as posts which contradict the narrative are being removed.

You misquoted something there.The last part of your quite isn't from me.

[Bast.7253]

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@"Bast.7253" said:Hopefully we can start getting into more interesting plot points now that the Charr conflict seems to have hit its climax. It just makes me wonder what the entire point of the Charr conflict or the frost legion was.If you need to ask what the point of the Charr conflict was, then you haven't been paying attention to Guild Wars 2's plot or background.... seemingly ever.

The point of the Charr conflict was, as mentioned all the way back in Bound by Blood, to ask the question "the Charr have always had enemies, but what happens when they don't". It exists to showcase the fundamental problem in a society consumed by the idea that war is the end all be all. Specifically, when said culture runs out of things to fight, they will invariably turn on themselves, and begin consuming themselves in that war. And to show us how some Charr that have seen how broken Charr society can be beforehand, such as Crecia, Rytlock, Efram, using this opportunity to try to make things better for their species.

This ties into Charr lore all the way back to the rise of the first Khan-Ur, their actions in GW1, the actions of Pyre Fierceshot in EoTN, the overthrowing of the Flame Legion, the Olmakhan's split, Rytlock always having been stated to be a bit different then other charr due to how much time he spent with non-Charr. This entire thing is the logical culmination of Guild War's narrative going back to GW1's release back in 2005. If you have to ask what the point was, then I really don't know what to say except you seemingly can't follow any sort of complex narrative.

Is this narrative served properly with the saga or would it have been better as a stand-alone without Jormag and the rest?

My issue is that they’ve tossed all of this into the saga and in doing so haven’t really been able to create a compelling story for me personally. It’s felt like a way to show Jormag into the story and I’m not really sure why other than general proximity. And unless Jormag initiates Bangar’s thoughts to pursue having an elder dragon at their disposal it feels out of left field.

[Funky.4861]

@Fueki.4753 Yeah it did a weird thing by including my reply to your comment as if it was part of your comment. Anyhow, it's a very interesting conversation to follow as i'm learning a lot about a race which i've disliked since the beginning of the game. I disliked them because of the way they were written was OTT.