Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Charrs are beasts that eat the children of Ascalon.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I like the randomness of this thread.
Eat me!
Sorry but this thread is about the change in the lore from GW to GW2,
not real life nor personal rp. DarkPoney got it right from the start.
For example:
There is a quest given by Dwayna's Avatar. A couple of ghosts are looking for their son.
Those are ascalonians - human (NPC) characters in the game.
There is Rurick and Althea. Love.
There is Gwen's mother in the Underworld still worried about her daugther.
Sorry, Six Tit, charrs are not like that.
There is the Wall and Stefan questioning "how long do think it took to build it?"
The new lore says that the Black Citadel was built on the ruins of Rin.
OK, but run all Ascalon pre-searing. No vestige of charr buildings.
One finds charr buildings only in Grothmar Wardowns and Dalala Uplands.
So the new lore is nonsense. They replaced charrs with what? Mobs.
Timur the Lenk ok first time i heard that name have to look it up sounds Gothic lol
Now I gotta make a Charr named Omnomchildren when GW2 comes out.
uhm not realy the new lore is supported by all of the old lore. there is little example of charr society in gw1 so your saying they cant love is BS. (as for how their children are raised... thats a culture issue not a what type of person(charr) are you issue).
ok now ascalon was owned by the charr but it was about over 1000 years before gw2 and 800+ years (prolly a little more since it took 800 years or so to build the ascalon wall thing) that they lived there any building of straw and such as they would have used around that time would have long since been destroyed and rotted away (if they had stone buildings the humans probably repurposed or tore them down).so there is just about no way your gonna find any structures from the pre-human age charr).
rin was after humans invaded ascalon and stole it from the charr (read the lore it says humans arent native to tyria their gods brought them there). the lore is all sound both humans and charr did horrible evil things (humans started it tho).
anyways believe what you want but the lore is what it is and it all fits coherantly together.
Here's an interesting angle to look at things from: The Charr became as militaristic as they are because of the slaughters the humans were responsible for when landing on Tyria, they focused on it for the survival of their species, it's no different than humanity in the Terminator films, because when your race is faced with the possibility of extinction, you unite into one, unified fighting force. There's no evidence that they were quite as militaristic before that and it seems a good catalyst for making that happen.
This then leads to an intereting thought. If the Charr are short-lived and they see life as a fight for survival, then loving their offspring would be giving them a chance for survival and being selfless rather than selfish. Insisting on raising one's offspring oneself in a dangerous environment, rather than letting them be trained from youth on how to survive, would be the selfish option and that would be a truly heartless thing to do, so opposedly the Charr part with their young because they love them and they want to see them have a chance at a future for all Charr. This realisation becomes especially important if you realise that Charr may not be as long lived as humans. What if a male Charr only lives as old as 50, and a female 60? Or less? That means that you want to get the young ones into training for survival as quickly as possible.
Anohter problem the OP has is that he assumes the Charr are humans, they'rre not, they're Charr, and therefore they have different cultural values, part of which will be based off their diferent physiology and lifespan, as covered above. He's trying to judge Charr ono the actions of humans, but that's like trying to judge a bear on the actions of a lion. Both have different mindsets and entirely different physiological builds, you can't try and understand one based off your understanding of the othehr, it would only serve to confuse you more. In the case of the Charr, I praise ArenaNet for creating a race that isn't a carbon copy of humanity, or elves, or dwarves, or whatnot.
And not going to directly reply to Goya, instead going to reply to people who replied to Goya, because I'm finding him more and more incoherent with each post, interested only in spamming ridiculous insults and irrelevant information with no basis. So... not going to bother, there. I'm fine with a discussion, but that's no discussion. The only reply I could even make to Goya would be in kind: Herpa derp derp.
Oh, before I forget...
@Hunterhyena
Correction! It's a game with really interesting writing and two books worth of lore released for it.
(Restructured the post slightly for better legibility.)
(Fixed some typos that spell correction didn't catch, such a missing 'ly' on 'opposed.')
That's wierd, Six Tit.
Strip all human values from a man, the remaining is a charr, that's what I said.
One may freely rewrite the lore and belive that 'all fits together'.
Was the Commando joke not 'fitting enough'? The rocket killed the nasty charrs, hu?
But the Wall means that charrs were no kittens and people needed strong defense since the beginning.
But this is a secondary point. The main point of this thread is that raised by DarkPoney.
In GW, charrs are the enemy of humanity. In GW2, charrs will be 'buddies'. GREAT!
Oh yes because it is not possible for countries in a war to see each other as anything but monsters. It’s not like two warring factions should ever move beyond that, and never in a battle.
I am sorry but what you are saying is a bunch of horse manure! GO talk to a combat veteran that has been through a War and you will get a total different view then the view you are presenting as the most logical. If all soldiers have nothing but hate in their hearts, how come this happened? http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/christmastruce.htm
I would say what happened in GW2 lore is way more realistic then the world you are trying to make it. By your logic the British and German soldiers should have been clawing each other’s eyes out, not giving presents. Looks like you logic fails even in the real world, and not just in fantasy!
@AKASlaphappy (And more in general, later on.)
I couldn't agree more. And after a certain point in wars, it seems like both parties even begin to wonder why they were warring in the first place and put that behind them to deal with bigger issues. That's happened as you've well pointed out, but the fun thing is is that this is exactly what's happened here, too. Smodur and Jennah both want an end to the war, and the vast majority of the Charr and humankind are behind it. The Charr realise that they're duty-bound to honour their treaty, and the humans don't wish to disgrace their queen, who matters to them.
Really, from a roleplay position, anyone who hates on the other races is going to be a disgrace to their own race, be they human or Charr, and that's why I don't support this from either perspective. There is a treaty now and that's a great thing, we're working together, and we're all on the same side, so there's no further need for animoisty and such is undesired. If you consider all we've read and the audio clips we recently heard, we know this to be true. Those against the treaty are in the minority and the Charr who're against the treaty are compared with the Gold Legion, which is something that no self-respecting Charr wants to be compared to.
What I'm getting at is that if I'm a Charr and I say that I hate humans, I'm shrinking my duty and I'm well on my way to becoming a honourless gladium. It's our duty to uphold the treaty and Charr commanders won't have hate talk because the treaty is necessary for the survival of all. (The audio clips back me up on this.) If a human speaks out in hate, then all around them would scowl at them because this is Queen Jennah's will. Queen Jennah is seen to be divinely appointed, hers ist he will of the human gods, so if Jennah wants something then to the vast majority of Krytans, this is the right thing to do.
My point is is that by the time of the game, the time we play in, racists are actually scorned much as they are in modern day earth. If you were to engage in hate speech about a race then you'd be frowned upon and disrespected the same way as if you said something racist about any European nation. So if one were to express racist sentiments to NPCs then they'd likely get chewed out for it, as, again, is aired out by the audio files.
There is a treaty now, the time for hate is behind us, and if everyone doesn't stop hating on races for whatever reason they do, then they're not going to have a lot of PvE fun in Guild Wars. There's no open world PvP, after all, and about the only way you can get to kill a Charr is in WvWvW, but even then you'd have Charr on the same side as you and it'd be your duty to help them out, and you'd be getting saved by Charr in WvWvW and PvE as well, and likewise, you'd be getting saved by humans. This hate is just going to negatively impact on your enjoyment of the game.
All the races have done horrible things in the past, yes, but we can't continue to live int he past. So if you're feeling racist, chill out, and look for reasons to leave that hate behind.
(Edited to get a typo that I didn't catch.
)
I don't know if I would call them buddies. It's more of a shakey alliance than anything. All you have to do is listen to some of the voice acting and dialog from their blogs and you can tell that Humans and Charr still dislike eachother.
My theme song.
Agreed, the majority of the population do not agree with the alliance in the first place. And when looking back at the human lore of GW2 the other big power for humans other than the queen is against it, and he is growing in population. Charr will respect stregnth right? so they're prob more willing to respect the queen and Thakery, making the alliance hold to some degree.
I was just saying that "this kind of vengeance and racial conflict is kind of inspiring." and in the first post that I am "a little sad that the game doesn't build on stuff like this in regards to player factions / racial conflicts. Those monsters will be your buddies now."
That is personal opinion for you. It seems that I am less aggravated over Charr and humans being buddies now than you are about someone else having different preferences.
Your rl references are completely beside the point as well. This is a game. And games as well as books do allow for an eternal enemy concept. (Actually most of the fantasy ones do). Blame Tolkien (and those who inspired him).
I could go on about centuries of rivalries between countries and cultures or the extinction of Neanderthals and the hypothesis that we killed off just about any of the large extinct, prehistoric creature. But rl doesn't equal games.
My brand new bloggity blog.
While it is nice to have your own opinion and voice your own skepticism the lore and setting of GW2 pretty much ruins it.
Have you played Rift? In Rift their are 2 factions, the Defiants and the Guardians. Apparently the main antagonist is a dragon named Regulos. What does Regulos have to do with the game? I have no clue, all I know is that the Defiants and the Guardians don't like each other and are fighting.
This is what would have happened to GW2 if Anet decided to make the Charr and Humans have a racial conflict where you were able to choose between them like factions in Rift. Everything that has to do with the elder dragons would have been pushed into the background and would have been basically meaningless.
The Charr quit children cold turkey. But now they're addicted to eating cold turkey. They need to go cold turkey again on cold turkey.
@Ablestron
Where are you getting your information from? The books show that the humans love their queen, so whilst some might have their doubts about the treaty, they remain faithful to the treaty out of the love of their queen. Having love for their queen and their gods is a defining aspect of the humans in Guild Wars 2. The only still standing nation that might not agree is Ebonhawke, but according to Ghosts of Ascalon, they were tired and losing that war, so I suspect that the soldiers there would be glad to see the fighting end.
If you consider all these factors together, I'd say that the majojrity is for the treaty, with just a few muttering dissidents who wish to still be at war. But the soldiers in Ebonhawke know what war is like, and they probably consider these whispers to be those of foolish children, because if you have the option to end a war, then you should take it. No more fighting and no more death. And to say it again - to question the treaty is to question queen Jennah and her word. Not many humans would take kindly to that.
@DarkPony
Buddies is not a great term for it, it's more of a partnership where they're slowly coming to learn about and respect each other, because they're having to see things from the viewpoint of the other party now, which they never could before. This has been true throughout history when wars have ended, and the Human-Charr war is over. People are thankful, and while some hate and racism will remain, I think it'll be in the minority. Many will just be thankful that the fighting is over and will be more willing to look to the future rather than the post, not to mention that time is a great healer, and in time, many things can be put behind people.
So it's awkward, there's no real hate there any more, but relations are strained because of how alien the Charr and humans find each other, they each consider the other race to be a thing of abstract concepts, so bizarre that they can barely wrap their minds around how the other works, but they are learning, now that they're mingling, they're learning. That's not to say that they're already best buds, but everyone knows that this treaty must work out, so everyone is putting in the effort.
It would be selfish not to obey the treaty as well, it's selfish to get caught up in hate and racism when your duty is to protect the lands and look out for the survival of your people. If going to war would mean a potential end to you and your foes, then that's not an ideal goal. Both sides have shown savagery but now it's a time to be sensible because the fates of both the races are on the line. They can't fight the dragons and each other, that'd be a geat way to invite in extinction for all the races. The dragons win.
The entertaining part is that by the time the dragons are defeated, the camaraderie there borne of mingling and fighting alongside each other, and having a victory together, likely will turn the Charr and humankind into best buds, because by that point they'll have an understanidng of each other, and they're going to be able to put their differences aside. But they're not there, not quite yet. But the logical reasons as to why the treaty exists is why everyone is trying to make this work, even though relations are still a little strained.
But there's going to be no open racism or conflict, because that would just be detrimental as that way you're just killing the dragons oes for the dragons, and it leaves a weakened overall army. If the humans wipe out ther Charr or vice versa, then the dragons have only the humans to contend with, or vice versa. Not a great scenario, eh?
(Typos!
It happens with posts this big. Sorry about that...)
Six Tit finally goes to the point (after lenghtly writing): charrs will be buddies.
But someone said above, players don't care about killing dragons, they want to kill the enemy.
What matters is Commando's logo; If it bleeds, I can kill.
Any charr in GW is an enemy, not a margoyle.
Think about Kurzik vs. Luxon with Human vs. Charr instead at the frontier.
Anet cannot miss it.
well first of all the guy never said players wont care about killing dragons, they only said that having 2 facts with charr as enemys of humans would take peoples focus away from the main story (aka the dragons).
commando's logo? that doesnt even make sense enough to be the usual strawman/circular logic that you keep using.
uhm no not any charr in gw is an enemy obviously the one you have as a hero isnt and every mergoyle i ever fought most certainly was out to kill me... so uhm ya...
what does kurzicks and luxons have to do with anything?
miss what? your making no sense.. basicly please stop with the circular logic, you seem to be obsessed with the idea that the charr must be bad guys (obviously your not reading the lore properly and are skewing it to meet your personal ideas of what the story is supposed to be)
btw they never rewrote any of the lore or wrote new lore that cancled out preceeding lore arenanet simply wrote new lore that didnt conflict with previous things and gave us more information than we had before. so your points are all moot.
p.s. as for the person who talked about an eternal enemy type based on what arenanet is doing thats not the type of story this is, its their story to tell not ours.
Anet cannot miss the opportunity of doing Human vs. Charr in GW2 like Kurzick vs. Luxon in GW
(without the waiting-party time).
Anet has stated time and time again that they want GW2 to be about cooperation and not about competition. Sorry mate, you lose.
There will be competition and colaboration in W v W v W, no big deal.
Why not a proper place at the frontier for rebel battles?
There are plenty of human and charr (aka players) that do not accept the treaty.
They could but they said they won't. Deal with it or move on to a different game.
'Accept or quit' is a loser strategy, some or perhaps many players will quit
and none will come.
What you are asking for is a more sandbox type game then GW2 is going to be, this will never happen. In a sandbox game I would be fine with the idea you are asking the developers to add into the game. As long as there are consequences for your actions, I totally agree with unlimited player choice in a sandbox game.
Although I think if any game like this did what you ask, you should be labeled as a traitor by your leaders. And in the case of Charr if you are captured by your Imperator you should be put to death as a traitor (AKA premadeath for character). The Charr are structured like a military what your superior says is Law. If you break that law and do not win, then your character should pay the price, it should die (and no crying to the developers afterwards about not being able to play your character anymore, you made the choice to be a traitor now you should have to live with it).
I would love to see this in a sandbox game with factional loyalties, GW2 is not going to be that game though.
This is where I got my info from
http://www.arena.net/blog/the-line-of-duty-%E2%80%93-the-three-military-orders-of-kryta
Skip down to "The Future Of the Throne", and read that. It will show that there is growing support for this Nobel as well as an increase in critisizum of the treaty between the charr.
I understand the fraze "devided we fall", but unfortunately most people refuse to see the bigger picture, and many humans are blinded by the memories of past aggressions of the Charr. In order to make a truly realistic human race in a game, you have to go beyond the virtues that we admire, and delve into the darker sides we all have as well.
Aka, never underestimate a Humans ability to completely ignore the bigger issue. Its anoying as hell, but its unfortunately realistic.
@Ablestron
A quick glance at that reveals that the only thing said about the treaty is that a few ministers were against the treaty, it's my understanding that there are 30 or so ministers in Divinity's Reach, you see many of them talking in the demo, so there's a tiny political faction that's against the treaty, but the vast majority support queen Jennah. It also mentions the same dissidents that I did, but there's no saying that they're a majority group.
So as far as I still understand it, there are a few dissidents, yes, but to be openly dissident is to be disrespectful to queen Jennah, and it's also unlawful, too. The dissidents in this case are the Black Seraph, but they're not a nice group of people, because in other lore sections you're also told that they engage in slavery, torture, and a number of terrible things, and it's the duty of human players to put them down. They're not wandering through Divinity's Reach, they've been outcasted.
So you have one outcasted minority... yes. Still not the majority. The majority of humans are still behind the treaty and it's our duty as players to uphold the word of queen Jennah, or, respectively, it's our duty as players to respect the word of Smodur. There is a treaty now, this has been decided, and the time for open hate is past. There's still going to be friction, yes, lots of it, I accept that, but there's not going to be any open hate, or murder, or vast amounts of racism.
Not to mention that it would be pure idiocy to continue the war whilst the dragons need to be dealt with, because, like you said, you understand the phrase that divide they'd fall, and they would. The treaty exists so that that won't happen, so that they won't all go quietly into the night, everyone has pulled together to fight the dragons, and usually, people who're openly racist and would prefer to kill someone than ally with them are considered selfish.
The five races of Tyria need to do this to survive, and by the end of this, we'll know so much about each other that removing the treaty will be pointless, because everyone involved will be able to empathise with all the other parties. Good job, dragons!
(Think about this: Would you want to be the one to say "I defy her majesty, the queen of Kryta, and call all who follow her fools! The Charr did terrible things, and we did nothing to deserve it, war is the only option!" Not only would taking a standpoint of innocence be untrue due to wha the humans did when they first landed on Tyria, but the Seraph would not take kindly to someone speaking badly of their queen, you'd likely end up in jail. Want to speak ill of Smodur in front of your Charr superiors? Well... good luck keeping your head!)