Curse

dark_prince2023 · May 19, 2010, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Does anyone have a link I can read to see if humans killed charr women and children when we pushed them from there land? It might not be there but I asume we did.

kupp · May 19, 2010, 10:54 PM // 22:54

If your point is to know why there are no female and young charr in GW1, that's explained as part of the lore in GW2 wiki. Basically, female charr weren't allowed to enter combat and were always in charr settlements; youngsters were sent off to 'schools' of some sort, academys, whatever. Not sure on this last one but it's in GW2 wiki anyway.

Don't have a link to your specific question.

Robbeh The Mad · May 20, 2010, 06:00 AM // 06:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by dark_prince2023

Does anyone have a link I can read to see if humans killed charr women and children when we pushed them from there land? It might not be there but I asume we did.

Keep in mind that in prophs we only seen the combat elements of the Charr. According to lore the Charr females were suppressed by the shaman class and not allowed to join the Charr forces on the front.

I've never seen a Charr child or a Norn or Asuran child as well. I'm guessing this will change in Gw2 seeing how we'll be exploring the other races cultures.

Ariovist Lynxkind · May 20, 2010, 06:13 AM // 06:13

On the other tact from the 2 previous posts, nothing much is said about human conflict with the Charr before the Pre-Searing Ascalon of the game, save for the fact that the humans pushed the Charr back to establish Ascalon. It would be interesting to see Anet give us some more background lore for Guild Wars, especially about the wars themselves (aside from the Battle of Khylo, which is on the wiki), the Corsair Wars, humans establishing themselves in Tyria (and the pushing back of the Charr) and such, but alas we have very little. One could assume, though, that since the Charr spared nothing when it came to human women and children, humans probably did the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbeh The Mad

I've never seen a Charr child

there is a concept art of one in the Art of Guild Wars 2.

Konig Des Todes · May 20, 2010, 07:27 PM // 19:27

@Ariovist: I thought it was the GDC slideshow? There was a baby charr, a teenage charr, and norn (?) children. I don't recall one in the Art of GW2.

@dark prince: There isn't. That's never said. The only thing said about the human/charr conflict is that the gods aided the humans push the charr back with magic, and with the assassination of the charr's leaders, the charr couldn't retaliate for hundreds of years due to a return of internal strife.

The only thing on charr women and children is that female charr were banished from the battlefield by the Shaman Caste which took over 200 years prior to GW1 and that children are often born fully furred and are sent to camps called Fahrar's at a young age where they are assimilated into a warband where they stay all their life.

Ariovist Lynxkind · May 20, 2010, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

@Ariovist: I thought it was the GDC slideshow? There was a baby charr, a teenage charr, and norn (?) children. I don't recall one in the Art of GW2.

That was it! Knew I saw the cutesy Charr cub pic somewhere (I dont actually have AoGW2, just thought it might have been in there)

draxynnic · May 22, 2010, 01:48 PM // 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariovist Lynxkind

On the other tact from the 2 previous posts, nothing much is said about human conflict with the Charr before the Pre-Searing Ascalon of the game, save for the fact that the humans pushed the Charr back to establish Ascalon. It would be interesting to see Anet give us some more background lore for Guild Wars, especially about the wars themselves (aside from the Battle of Khylo, which is on the wiki), the Corsair Wars, humans establishing themselves in Tyria (and the pushing back of the Charr) and such, but alas we have very little. One could assume, though, that since the Charr spared nothing when it came to human women and children, humans probably did the same thing.

Well, in the world of Guild Wars, both human women and female Charr (until the rise of the Shaman Caste) fought, so the females on both sides would be fair game.

Children might be different - we know that Charr enslave human cubs (and human adults too). It's possible that orphaned Charr picked up by advancing human forces were raised by the victors as well, but any such orphans would have died of old age by the time of presearing since Ascalon stopped pushing into Charr territory at the start of the Guild Wars if not earlier.

Ariovist Lynxkind · May 22, 2010, 09:57 PM // 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Well, in the world of Guild Wars, both human women and female Charr (until the rise of the Shaman Caste) fought, so the females on both sides would be fair game.

Children might be different - we know that Charr enslave human cubs (and human adults too). It's possible that orphaned Charr picked up by advancing human forces were raised by the victors as well, but any such orphans would have died of old age by the time of presearing since Ascalon stopped pushing into Charr territory at the start of the Guild Wars if not earlier.

Maybe, or the Charr knew better than the arrogant humans and kept the future generations well back from the fighting until they were old enough to join in.

My best suggestion though is that, being human, they saw the Charr as animals, not equal sentient beings, thus treated the cubs the same way (killed them rather than capture them as prisoner.

I guess we wont know cause the time of the game the attitude is 'kill all Charr' rather than 'lets take their land for our own'

Magragoc · May 24, 2010, 01:56 PM // 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariovist Lynxkind

Maybe, or the Charr knew better than the arrogant humans and kept the future generations well back from the fighting until they were old enough to join in.

My best suggestion though is that, being human, they saw the Charr as animals, not equal sentient beings, thus treated the cubs the same way (killed them rather than capture them as prisoner.

I guess we wont know cause the time of the game the attitude is 'kill all Charr' rather than 'lets take their land for our own'

Well, your personal attitude seems to be influencing your thoughts here. Note you keep saying "arrogant humans" and the "Charr knew better". There's no evidence of that anywhere.

Don't fall into the trap of viewing the old Charr as "noble savages", it's a ridiculous remnant of Britain's Empire. Like any tribal society, they engaged in often vicious internecine warfare. Look at their body structure: they sure as hell weren't peaceful herbivores living off of the land. Yes, when they fell to worshiping the Titans, their culture degraded, but to claim that it degraded from some lofty egalitarian ideal ...well it's the kind of pap that Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for years. Remember Dances with Wolves?

When an army invades an area, a flood of refugees will be fleeing from them. It stands to reason that the old charr, not having large cities to tie them down, fled from the human's advance. Whereas we know that the Charr killed everyone that wasn't suitable for slavery, and enslaved the rest of the population. Even women and children. There's nothing in-lore about humans having charr slaves or labor camps. In fact, how do the charr refer to humans? "Meat". It's hard to deny sentience to an enemy that speaks the same language you do, I don't understand how you came to that assertion, but from what we've seen in-game, the charr are the ones that view their adversaries as untermensch, not humans.

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.

Konig Des Todes · May 24, 2010, 02:06 PM // 14:06

Actually, Magragoc, in Prophecies the Ascalonians call charr mindless beasts. It seems that, really, all sentient races view their own as the best - charr, human, mursaat, asura, centaur, norn, etc.

And even in history, cultures have been "stupid enough" to put women in combat hand-to-hand or otherwise. Remember the Amazon women in greek mythology? In Africa, there are cultures which have women as the dominant emotionless ones while men are the sensitive ones even. You say that Ariovist is bias and you bash on him, yet you're clearly equally biased.

Magragoc · May 24, 2010, 04:30 PM // 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

Actually, Magragoc, in Prophecies the Ascalonians call charr mindless beasts. It seems that, really, all sentient races view their own as the best - charr, human, mursaat, asura, centaur, norn, etc.

And even in history, cultures have been "stupid enough" to put women in combat hand-to-hand or otherwise. Remember the Amazon women in greek mythology? In Africa, there are cultures which have women as the dominant emotionless ones while men are the sensitive ones even. You say that Ariovist is bias and you bash on him, yet you're clearly equally biased.

I'm sorry if I gave offense, but I never intended to "bash" anyone or anything; please don't tar me with the same brush as "Myotheraccount", nothing hostile or insulting was said.

I agree completely that every culture or species views themselves as the "good guys", that's only common sense. I was objecting to Lynxkinds implication that the charr were morally superior to humans, when the fact remains that if viewed objectively, the charr were "bad guys". How much of that can be laid at the feet of the Shaman caste and Titan worship is open to debate, but the behavior isn't created out of vacuum: The tendencies have to be there already for the Shamen to have manipulated.

As to the other, it's unfair to talk about history and then give an example from mythology. There was no real tribe of "Amazons", it was a Greek fairytale. As to those African cultures, nothing I said had anything to do with sensitivity or emotion. Given our long gestation periods, and our longer journey to maturity, it would be cultural suicide to employ the same numbers of males and females on the front lines. Even the Spartans, who can lay a fair claim on being the most militarized culture in history, never did that.

To be fair, there will always be exceptional people like Boadicea or Joan of Arc, but by their very nature, they're exceptions. There is no division of labor in GW, because the developers wanted (wisely) to allow each player to be whomever they'd like. Isn't that the point of a game?

Ariovist Lynxkind · May 24, 2010, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Actually, Konig hit the nail on the head about my thoughts. While other human cultures in GW may not reflect it, the Ascalons have certainly proven themselves to be arrogant. They built the wall, but then they built cities outside it, including the capital Drascir, which could be seen as a taunting gesture towards the charr, but more importantly, in regards to this convo, the families were out there too, including future generations of Ascalonians.

What I was getting at with the charr 'knowing better', is savage though they might be (and there is no dispute there), they would still have the cubs protected somewhere because they know that they are the next generation of warriors. Mind you, though, the charr have a different mindset and culture to humans. Excerpt from 'Ecology of the Charr'

Quote:

Charr children are called cubs, though female cubs are occasionally called “kits” out of affection. Infants are born fully furred, with open eyes and functional limbs. Within a few days, cubs can follow their mothers over even the harshest terrain. They eat meat within a month of birth, and are fully independent several months later.

Charr cubs are raised by their parents only during this short period of time. Thereafter, they are taken to Fahrar camps (the closest human approximation is school or education), there they are raised in large packs by the Charr of their legion. Cubs in a Fahrar are taught to unify, encouraged to define their own social structure, and are thus forced into a warband. They are given a name to claim, which the cubs within a single warband derive their surnames, such as Fierceshot or Doomclaw.

First off, it doesnt take long for them to be on their own. Secondly, unlike the academy at Drascir, I doubt the Fahrar camps would be practically on the front lines.

But, to address your accusation, I was not implicating that they were morally superior, and in fact the way you label them as "bad guys" it could be said you are implicating that humans are morally superior. In reality, though, as Konig pointed out each race views themselves as superior. I just try to look at each race on an even footing and see the differences in their culture.

Konig Des Todes · May 24, 2010, 08:59 PM // 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magragoc

I agree completely that every culture or species views themselves as the "good guys", that's only common sense.

It isn't so much they view themselves as good - I personally don't think the charr have opinions about good and evil, there's just allies, tools, and enemies. But every race views themselves superior to others.

Quote:

There was no real tribe of "Amazons", it was a Greek fairytale. As to those African cultures, nothing I said had anything to do with sensitivity or emotion.

Actually, this might not be the case, as archeologists have discovered remains of what could be what the Amazons are based off of. And for the second, I was meaning that women, in some cultures, are viewed to be stronger than men. Thus women would be preferred over men in combat.

I have to go now, so I'll respond to the rest later.

djemonk · Jan 28, 2011, 07:55 PM // 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariovist Lynxkind

... nothing much is said about human conflict with the Charr before the Pre-Searing Ascalon of the game, save for the fact that the humans pushed the Charr back to establish Ascalon.

Where do we learn this? I'm interested in the history of the Charr using in game lore.

Thanks in advance!

Konig Des Todes · Jan 29, 2011, 01:54 AM // 01:54

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_...y_of_the_Charr

It's a wiki page copied verbatim from an official article written by Ree Soesbee of ArenaNet.

iatimberwolf · Jan 30, 2011, 07:52 PM // 19:52

1) What Legions do/did Pyre Fierceshot,Kalla Scorchrazor, Scorch EmberSpire and Rend Ragemauler belong to?

2) In GW2 if I play as a charr what is the definition of a "good" charr and a "evil" charr? Is a good charr one that follows his/her warband/legion and an evil one one that rebels against his/her warband or legion?

RedDog91 · Jan 30, 2011, 09:22 PM // 21:22

It is unknown exactly what legion Pyre Fierceshot belonged to because he is stripped of all his "titles" when he kills a shaman in the Flame Legion. I would assume he is part of the Blood Legion as that is what legion his descendant Kalla Scorchrazor is part of.
^removing crossed out part.
Kalla Scorchrazor's father is the leader of the Blood Legion. It never specifies if Kalla is also part of it. Since family ties in Charr society don't indicate their legion, Pyre's legion is also unknown.

It is unknown what legion Scorch Emberspire belongs to. His name "Emberspire" shows that he is part of the Ember warband, which is believed to be part of the Flame Legion, as the warband names often indicate their legion in some form (ember)

It is unknown which legion Rend Ragemauler belongs to. It is speculated that he is part of the Flame Legion as his locations place him very close to them.

Your second question is one that belongs on GW2guru, not here. But do use the search function when you go there as there are at least 3 topics already on the matter, no need for a new one.

gremlin · Jan 30, 2011, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Your second question is a curious one.

Simply put someone is good if they do good and evil if the do evil.

Suppose the Charr is in a warband that aims to do evil how could he be classed as good for obeying the warbands instructions and do evil.

The warband shouldn't be part of the equation

draxynnic · Jan 31, 2011, 02:41 PM // 14:41

To the first question: Each of the legions does have seperate fahrur and it's unusual (albeit not impossible) for a child of one legion to go to the fahrur of another. Thus, if Kalla Scorchrazor's father is in the Blood Legion, it's likely that her grandfather (Pyre) and great-grandfather (Vatlaaw Doomtooth) are in that legion as well. (In fact, with Pyre's descendants being in the Blood Legion's leadership, I'm surprised they didn't play a greater role in the truce faction. Maybe they wanted to keep their association with the Goremonger and her allies under wraps.)

From their warband names, I'd guess Scorch Emberspire and Rend Ragemauler to be Flame and Blood respectively, although that's purely an educated guess. It is worth noting, however, that at that time every legion had its shamans (even though the Flame had more) and that the shamans were all in cahoots with one another, so Rend's location near a Flame stronghold doesn't need to mean he's Flame himself.

Regarding "good" and "evil" charr - the "good" charr are the charr from the Blood, Ash, and Iron Legions, the "bad" charr are the unplayable Flame. You could throw in the dragon-corrupted crystal charr, but they're kinda not really charr any more.

Also: Merged, because we don't really need two charr threads running simultaneously.

BrettM · Jan 31, 2011, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

To the first question: Each of the legions does have seperate fahrur and it's unusual (albeit not impossible) for a child of one legion to go to the fahrur of another. Thus, if Kalla Scorchrazor's father is in the Blood Legion, it's likely that her grandfather (Pyre) and great-grandfather (Vatlaaw Doomtooth) are in that legion as well.

I am not so sure that this is correct, based on Ghosts of Ascalon.

Charr matings are not necessarily within legion. (For example, Ember Doomforge is Ash Legion and so is her mother, but her grandmother is Almorra Soulkeeper of the Blood Legion.) It is mentioned that charr children are placed in the fahrar of one of their parents' legions (pp 276-277), which suggests that cross-legion matings are not uncommon.

It is not said that the fahrar choice is determined by the legion of the father, but must be the legion of one of the parents. Clearly it could be the mother's legion, depending on the circumstances. (In fact, it might even be the mother's legion most of the time, since the cub is with her until it enters the fahrar.)

Further, Dougal gives a bit of a lecture on the different legions (p 223). He states that the Iron Legion attracts warbands with an affinity to explosives and machines, the Blood Legion gathers those that are strong and violent, and the Flame Legion has most of the spellcasters and shamans. The Ash Legion is largely spies and saboteurs.

The phrasing in that speech -- which is uncorrected by Ember, who was present -- seems to suggest that warbands have a choice in their legion affiliation, and can go where they are attracted, rather than being forced into the legion in which they were raised. This may apply only to new warbands coming out of the fahrar, but, at some point, they appear to have a choice. (Could it be that legions have recruiters who visit the various fahrars to try to find likely prospects? Career days for cubs close to graduating?

)

So it seems like a pretty thin chain of logic to put Kalla, Pyre, and Vatlaaw all in the Blood legion based on their relationship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecology of the Charr

The four heirs of the Khan-Ur began the four High Legions and named them after their warbands–the Iron Legion, Flame Legion, Blood Legion and Ash Legion. The leaders of these legions maintained their familial name, keeping surnames such as Flamebringer, Ashclaw, and Ironstrike to delineate their warband’s primacy within the legion.

Yet the Ash Legion imperator at the time of GoA is a female named Malice Swordshadow. This seems to contradict the surname "rule" given above, since Malice is obviously part of the Sword warband.

Frankly, this makes more sense than what Ecology tells us. Adult warbands do not recruit children as replacements as far as we know, or warbands would essentially go on forever. So there would be no way for a descendant of an imperator to keep the same familial name, unless the descendant changed the name of their warband upon becoming the imperator. (Which is obviously not the case with Malice Swordshadow.)

Overall, it seems like warband names are not a very good guide to legion affiliation, and warband names can be repeated, perhaps in different legions. (Ember Doomforge and Vatlaaw Doomtooth, for example. We know Ember is Ash, and your hypothesis places Vatlaaw in Blood.)