Guild Wars Forums - GW Guru

Go Back   Guild Wars Forums - GW Guru > The Hall of Knowledge > Druid's Overlook


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 01, 2011, 01:21 PM // 13:21   #21
Furnace Stoker
draxynnic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Guild: [CRFH]

Disable Ads

Ack! Internet hiccough ate my post! Shorter this time. Might not be as clear or as well explained as the first time around, but I really don't want to write a half-dozen paragraphs again...

First, statistically, if there's a roughly 50/50 chance of a cub going to the mother or father's fahrur, I'd estimate a 2/3 chance of Pyre also being a Blood Legion member (with a 1/6 chance both mother and father are Blood, and I'm pretty sure Pyre ain't Flame). Vatlaaw comes out at roughly 50% statistically, although the warband name and his activities do suggest Ash.

There is a pertubation here in the inequity between male and female charr at the time, possibly meaning that the father's line is more valued (making the cub more likely to go to the father's legion) or that the female is more responsible for raising the cub makes the cub more likely to go to her legion. It's hard to say which way this would go.

Regarding warband specialties: I doubt that the charr legions actually encourage warbands to go to legions that share their specialty, even if Ember didn't bother to correct it. Instead, I suspect it's that natural tendencies combined with training brings out the specialty, but that "freak" warbands (except the magical ones due to that cultural bias) would probably be valued more than those that toe the line so that the legion doesn't have to call in another legion for jobs outside their specialty. While not so institutionalised as you've suggested, though, I suspect it is possible for warbands to change legions, giving Ember less reason to interject. Likely the Flame Legion's relative strength (seemingly more powerful than any of the other individual legions) has come from shamans and sorcerors from the other three defecting to somewhere where they'd be more welcome.

I suspect you're right in that warband names aren't passed on, instead dying as the warband dies to be retaken by a later successor. This may or may not be limited by legion, although I would suspect that there are some warband names that are more likely to come from one warband than another. For instance, fire-based warband names are probably most likely (but not necessarily) Flame or Ash, in that order.

Regarding the idea of the primus warband - That does seem to be out, and when you think about it, it's actually a pretty stupid system (it implies that whenever the members of the old primus warband die out you end up with the untried leader of the next primus warband getting the Imperatorship, and meanwhile there's a lot of eligible talent that never get the opportunity to try for it just because they graduated at the wrong time). I am wondering now, though, whether it's possible that the imperator's warband is given the primus warband name as an honourific, which they can choose to use or ignore as they wish. (An alternative may be that the imperator him- or herself carries the old warband name, while their warband carries the primus name - which might explain why the Flame leaders in GW1 tended to be Burnt*something* rather than Flame*something*.)

Incidentally, anyone else amused by the irony that one of the most "good" charr we've seen so far, the driver of the truce from the charr side, is called Malice?
draxynnic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2011, 05:40 AM // 05:40   #22
Ascalonian Squire
Join Date: Jul 2007
Guild: Applicant Parking Pad
Profession: N/Mo

...well it's the kind of pap that Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for years. Remember Dances with Wolves?
Um, no? I can't think of too many instances where monstrous or savage looking people actually turn out to be not bad. It's turning an even more stereotypical (ugly=evil) concept on its head.

As to humans using females as warriors and the charr "knowing better": Come on, you know that's just so people can play whichever sex they'd like in-game. Even in a fantasy setting, no culture would be stupid enough to risk its future by putting females against males in hand-to-hand combat.
That is pretty sexist sounding. Obviously not every female is going to be on the frontlines because it won't be what every woman wants. Just as not all men are on the frontlines. If a woman is capable enough then what is the problem? There are a plethora of strong female fighters in the game to use as examples as well.

The real problem with video games tends to be that it is tougher to design women than men. Which is why we so often see mono-gendered species. It's easier to assume that there are in fact females around somewhere and that there are in fact children somewhere. Just because they aren't shown in game doesn't mean they don't exist. really didn't have to explain that fact with a backstory although the backstory they do have for the charr isn't bad.

Does anyone have a link I can read to see if humans killed charr women and children when we pushed them from there land?
Given the humans' relationship with the charr, I am sure they killed everything that was a threat or that could fight back. Yeah probably women in children. If we didn't have a backstory about them and they were just faceless monsters that would be a given. But that is really what they are to the humans--monsters. That makes killing women and children an entirely different level of morality.
Ruefully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2011, 07:56 PM // 19:56   #23
Ascalonian Squire
The 8th's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: where the map ends
Guild: Seven Ronin
Profession: R/Mo

As has been stated, no official lore regarding the slaughter of charr non-combatants exist, though it very likely happened. The history of humanity in our world shows us that when one group attempts to take territory from another, the exchange is.. less than pleasant. Generaly the first step in colonizing and area is to eradicate the indigenous population, that includes ensuring that none of thier young grow up to be future resistance leaders. Plus as the above post mentions, you have to consider the attitude humans of the time had towards charr. If you where pushing into let's say..imp (or insert any other GW1 monster that really annoys you) territory, wouldn't you make sure you smash up all thier nests and kill any survivors before building a farm on what used to be thier land? To most humans charr are nothing more than monsters, vicious animals that need to be eliminated so that humans can live safetly where they want to.
The 8th is offline   Reply With Quote

Share This Forum!  

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:50 PM // 19:50.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
jQuery(document).ready(checkAds()); function checkAds(){if (document.getElementById('adsense')!=undefined){document.write("_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Adblock', 'Unblocked', 'false',,true]);");}else{document.write("