Curse

Mordakai · Jun 18, 2009, 05:34 PM // 17:34

This is unconfirmed concept art. It may be for GW2, it may not...

Assuming it's GW2 art, I doubt it would be the Iron Citadel.

I think "The Ecology of the Charr" would have mentioned it if a Dragon had taken over the Iron Citadel!

"Today, a little more than 250 years after their initial attack on the Wall, the Charr still face the threat of Ascalonian ghosts as well as natural dangers. However, they have all-but tamed most of the lands east of the Shiverpeaks, raising fortresses of their own where human fortifications once stood. One of the strongest of these, the Iron Citadel–raised on the ruins of the city of Rin–stands protectively, overlooking the haunted lands. From there, the Charr may one day retake Ascalon City, finishing the conquest begun so long ago."

This, of course, does not mean the picture is of Augury Rock.

It could not be GW2 concept art at all.
or
It could be another dragon, in another area.

Mod Edit by Konig Des Todes: I have moved two pages worth of posts from a thread meant for the Ancient Dragon's location because it was getting too off-topic. The concept art that let to this discussion was added to the top.

Obrien Xp · Jun 19, 2009, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

After thinking more about this, I doubt it would be the Iron Citadel.

I think "The Ecology of the Charr" would have mentioned it if a Dragon had taken over the Iron Citadel!

Yeah, its definetly not the iron citadel. I think that would be made to look more sinister and menacing than just a big rock. The charr architecture is more in the form of small huts and large metallic structures.

Gmr Leon · Jun 19, 2009, 02:46 AM // 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obrien Xp

Yeah, its definetly not the iron citadel. I think that would be made to look more sinister and menacing than just a big rock. The charr architecture is more in the form of small huts and large metallic structures.

That is, of what we've seen thus far. I'm still fairly certain what we saw were merely camps in comparison to their actual towns and outposts.

Konig Des Todes · Jun 19, 2009, 05:03 AM // 05:03

I doubt the location in Sacnoth is a simple camp. The other locations, possible. Though I think comparing the architecture in Saul's mission from the BMP to the EN structure suggests that the large metal structures are more permanent things. Which would mean we see 3 Charr Settlements. And 3 are hardly enough to call the "normal structures" of a race - especially since 250 years pass.

draxynnic · Jun 19, 2009, 05:21 AM // 05:21

Still, the impression I've always had of the Charr is that they aren't really great builders - the impression I've always had is that Sacnoth is supposed to be one of their major military strongholds, and it is rather... primitive. At least at the time of GW1, they seem to rely more on magic and beastmastery than architecture and engineering.

This may, however, stem from a question of need. With Siege Devourers available, they don't need to make mechanical catapults and trebuchets, and being furred creatures in an apparently temperate climate, the Charr probably don't need good shelters to live in as much as humans, Norn, or dwarves do (the former due to relatively low resistance to the cold, the others due to living in the Shiverpeaks). Thus, such skills may not have been developed as the Charr concentrated on others that they found to be more important.

Still, as has already been mentioned, 250 years is a long time, and in most of that time they've been sitting on the ruins of Ascalon's former fortifications - it's likely that in that time they've at least figured out how to patch up what was destroyed in the Searing.

Gmr Leon · Jun 19, 2009, 05:46 AM // 05:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

I doubt the location in Sacnoth is a simple camp. The other locations, possible. Though I think comparing the architecture in Saul's mission from the BMP to the EN structure suggests that the large metal structures are more permanent things. Which would mean we see 3 Charr Settlements. And 3 are hardly enough to call the "normal structures" of a race - especially since 250 years pass.

The location in Sacnoth contains very little Charr architecture, I'd say, although I may need to revisit it, and more of the Charr taking advantage of the natural features of the land. Also, how would comparing the structures in Saul's mission to what we see in the Northlands suggest the metal structures are permanent? Not that I completely disagree, but if the architecture seen in Saul's mission is anything, it would be that of an encampment, rather than anything permanent. After all, the Charr didn't live north of the Giant's Basin, they were just there to prepare for the invasion of Kryta. Nothing more, nothing less.

..Although, one has to wonder how they were aware of the human presence there..And in Orr..But that's beside the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draxynnic

Still, the impression I've always had of the Charr is that they aren't really great builders - the impression I've always had is that Sacnoth is supposed to be one of their major military strongholds, and it is rather... primitive. At least at the time of GW1, they seem to rely more on magic and beastmastery than architecture and engineering.

And I don't completely disagree. However, prior to, I'm wanting to say, Nightfall, players assumed the Charr were dull-witted beasts incapable of speech, and simply having a violent drive like many of the other creatures we encounter. There were a few who thought otherwise, and they turned out to be correct, and I'm maintaining a similar standpoint except in regards to their architecture. What we see is primitive, yes, and I do not disagree, but I also do not think what we see comprises the rest of their architecture.

For an example, it would be like thinking all of Italy's architecture looks like the Vatican, or that all British architecture resembles castles, or that all German architecture has a Gothic style about it. Do you see my point? We've only seen a section of the Charr's land, assuming that all of their architecture will resemble what we've seen so far is far too presumptuous.

Konig Des Todes · Jun 19, 2009, 06:03 AM // 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

This may, however, stem from a question of need. With Siege Devourers available, they don't need to make mechanical catapults and trebuchets...

During GW1, I'm sure. But I would think that, between the time of GW1 and GW2, they learn from Ascalonian structures and trebuchets how to make permenant. Afterall, Pyre himself says that Siege Devourers are a sign of weakness and intimidation - which we find out is because the devourers will follow any new master. So having non-sentient sieges would be more beneficial in some ways. I'm thinking only the Iron Legion would delve into this though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GmrLeon

Also, how would comparing the structures in Saul's mission to what we see in the Northlands suggest the metal structures are permanent? Not that I completely disagree, but if the architecture seen in Saul's mission is anything, it would be that of an encampment, rather than anything permanent.

That is what I meant. In Saul's mission, there are no large metal structures - just the wood, smaller metal huts, and tarp-like things (never could figure out what that is, a thick parchment-like tarp? Skin of animals? Could never figure out myself

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GmrLeon

..Although, one has to wonder how they were aware of the human presence there..And in Orr..But that's beside the point.

I'd say the Titans told them, seeing how the Titans, according to the Nightfall quests, ordered the Charr Shamans to attack at least Orr, most likely Kryta as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GmrLeon

And I don't completely disagree. However, prior to, I'm wanting to say, Nightfall, players assumed the Charr were dull-witted beasts incapable of speech, and simply having a violent drive like many of the other creatures we encounter. There were a few who thought otherwise, and they turned out to be correct, and I'm maintaining a similar standpoint except in regards to their architecture. What we see is primitive, yes, and I do not disagree, but I also do not think what we see comprises the rest of their architecture.

I understand that we only see a portion of the Charr Homelands, and thus a portion of the Charr buildings. The structures found in Ascalon and in Saul's mission are more of "camp" structures, and those in the Charr Homelands - while still primative - are more... secure. Thus supporting being more than simple encampments.

Again, the spot in Sacnoth, as it is the central meeting place of the Shaman Caste, would (assumingly) be including one of the most favored locations. Either the Charr have no interest in architecture to include their "fancy" things in the leader's seemingly main fort, or their architecture really is primitive.

Of course, this is most likely to change due to their view of the Ascalonian structure, most likely the Charr will be merging what we've seen and Ascalonian structure, making their own style of the same kind of buildings, with similar infrastructure to allow the size.

Edit: While vanquishing Dalada Uplands, I saw various settlement areas similar to Doomlore, just a little smaller. Same structures, which made me think.

With the Charr's nature, what if all of the Charr's structures are encampments? That there are no true "structures," just camp spot after camp spot. That is, until the Charr take over Ascalon as a whole, where they then use the Ascalonian structures for "bases" of the Charr's new structures like the Iron Citadel.

nilzardo · Jun 19, 2009, 06:54 PM // 18:54

So, about that big black northern Island: I think it's the Fissure of Woe. There are krytan shipwrecks on the shore in FoW which should prove that the Fissure lies in the world of Tyria and not in some other realm. So maybe whe'll see more about that Island in gw2?

Free Runner · Jun 19, 2009, 10:18 PM // 22:18

Its too small to be the Fissure of Woe. Plus we know the FoW is somewere in the Mists/Rift. The ships sharing a Krytan skin is due to it being the early days of Prophecies when only one or two destroyed boat models were around.

draxynnic · Jun 20, 2009, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

During GW1, I'm sure. But I would think that, between the time of GW1 and GW2, they learn from Ascalonian structures and trebuchets how to make permenant. Afterall, Pyre himself says that Siege Devourers are a sign of weakness and intimidation - which we find out is because the devourers will follow any new master. So having non-sentient sieges would be more beneficial in some ways. I'm thinking only the Iron Legion would delve into this though.

Actually, I thought that was just his pointing out that the placement of the siege devourers was a weakness - and non-sentient siege should really be easier to take over.

Still, I did say that in 250 years a lot could have changed.

Quote:

With the Charr's nature, what if all of the Charr's structures are encampments? That there are no true "structures," just camp spot after camp spot. That is, until the Charr take over Ascalon as a whole, where they then use the Ascalonian structures for "bases" of the Charr's new structures like the Iron Citadel.

It would explain why some of the Charr Legion capitals are built on Ascalon's ruins instead of in the Charr Homelands. On the other hand, if that is how all Charr live, one wonders why we don't see the Charr women in those encampments. Where are they?

And there's a question that could scupper all these arguments, if the answer is "in the real Charr cities." We're assuming that the Hierophant's stronghold is, well, an actual stronghold, when it could just be a particularly secure, but still temporary, camp being used as a holding zone for both the prisoners and the Destroyers. And if it was really the centre of the Hierophant's power, Pyre might not have needed the interrogation to guess that the Hierophant was there.

Of course, this begs the question of why such a large region deep in Charr territory doesn't have any more permanent settlements, but that might simply be an aspect of Charr culture we have yet to learn - they might, for example, have heavily secured fortresses for their noncombatants (cubs and, during GW1, females), while the warbands use the camps as resting places for long-distance hunts and patrols across their territory.

Or they may just have evacuated when the Ebon Vanguard started operating.

Idly, regarding the island in the north... I can't remember just how big the FoW is, but that island is bigger than the entire Fire Island chain (in fact, it doesn't compare too badly with some other entire regions such as the Prophecies section of the Crystal Desert). This isn't to say it is the FoW, as we do know that it's in the Mists and, further, the topography doesn't match, but it probably is actually big enough.

Konig Des Todes · Jun 20, 2009, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Actually, I thought that was just his pointing out that the placement of the siege devourers was a weakness - and non-sentient siege should really be easier to take over.

Still, I did say that in 250 years a lot could have changed.

He says, "I also said the siege devourers are out front. A good place for scaring people off. A bad place for actual defense. We grab them first." I read that as siege devourers are bad for defense but are better for offense - and they are used more for intimidation in defense.

Also, while non-sentient sieges would be easier to take over, they are harder to move and thus have to be pre-set or given a lot of time to set. So, for defense at least, they would have stationary sieges. Offensive sieges would probably be Devourers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

It would explain why some of the Charr Legion capitals are built on Ascalon's ruins instead of in the Charr Homelands. On the other hand, if that is how all Charr live, one wonders why we don't see the Charr women in those encampments. Where are they?

And there's a question that could scupper all these arguments, if the answer is "in the real Charr cities." We're assuming that the Hierophant's stronghold is, well, an actual stronghold, when it could just be a particularly secure, but still temporary, camp being used as a holding zone for both the prisoners and the Destroyers. And if it was really the centre of the Hierophant's power, Pyre might not have needed the interrogation to guess that the Hierophant was there.

Of course, this begs the question of why such a large region deep in Charr territory doesn't have any more permanent settlements, but that might simply be an aspect of Charr culture we have yet to learn - they might, for example, have heavily secured fortresses for their noncombatants (cubs and, during GW1, females), while the warbands use the camps as resting places for long-distance hunts and patrols across their territory.

Or they may just have evacuated when the Ebon Vanguard started operating.

I just recall, in the Ecology of the Charr, there is the mention of Fahrar camps - those are most likely permanent. And that the cubs and females and wounded take care of herding animals to eat.

draxynnic · Jun 21, 2009, 11:16 AM // 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

He says, "I also said the siege devourers are out front. A good place for scaring people off. A bad place for actual defense. We grab them first." I read that as siege devourers are bad for defense but are better for offense - and they are used more for intimidation in defense.

Ah.

No, it was the positioning that made them good for intimidation and bad for actual defense. Good for intimidation because you have two big scary devourers that anyone approaching the front gate cannot fail to notice, and it's a demonstration of strength besides (the owner of the fortress is confident enough in their strength to leave their siege in a vulnerable position). For those who aren't intimidated, however, it IS a vulnerable position, while putting the devourers inside the fortress - on the bluffs, say - would make the mission considerably more difficult.

In short, Pyre wasn't commenting on the devourers themselves, but on how the Hierophant was using them.

Lishy · Jun 21, 2009, 07:16 PM // 19:16

This kind of brings up a good question though:
What are Charr like outside of War? I mean, they seem to have a close relation to animals and beasts, being very animal-like themselves.
I imagine beast masters and tamers.

Free Runner · Jun 21, 2009, 08:01 PM // 20:01

I'm guessing that Charr life outside of war would consist of preparing/making things for war.

This thread seems to have come under the Guru Lore Forum Curse of any lore thread having more than 4 pages turning into a discussion on something that had very little to do with the original post or thread theme

Neo Atomisk · Jun 22, 2009, 04:46 AM // 04:46

oh yea, the ancient dragons.
I'd imagine the Charr to be like Orcs or w/e and live for the war... it'd explain why they have a military "goverment".

Konig Des Todes · Jun 22, 2009, 11:55 AM // 11:55

Not really live for war, but live for fighting. In all of Charr history, that we know of thanks to the Ecology of the Charr, the Charr have been focused on fighting the biggest threat to them - internal and external.

Outside of wars, I'd guess the military (which is all but the wounded and *in GW1* the females, for the most part), would be training and getting stronger. There would, presumably, be those who focus not so much on fighting, but on helping others fight (smiths who craft armor/weapons, technicians/architects who set the siege devourers, build towers and other buildings). Then there would be those who manage the herds of their living meat.

draxynnic · Jun 24, 2009, 12:04 PM // 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

Not really live for war, but live for fighting. In all of Charr history, that we know of thanks to the Ecology of the Charr, the Charr have been focused on fighting the biggest threat to them - internal and external.

And they consider everything to be a (potential) threat.

Konig Des Todes · Jun 24, 2009, 01:35 PM // 13:35

They consider everything stronger than them a threat.

If they cannot control it, they want it dead (similar to Stone Summit).

Mordakai · Jun 24, 2009, 03:44 PM // 15:44

But the Charr respect the Norn.

And they have had a "pseudo-alliance" (quote from Movement of World") since pre-searing, when the Norn allowed the Charr to cross their territory to attack Kryta.

Konig Des Todes · Jun 24, 2009, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Hmm, that is true. Perhaps the Shamans originally saw it as a better chance to remove the more hated foes (humans and their gods) first? With the intention to then attack the Norn? After all, the Charr do attack the Norn as well.