Feedback talk:User/Nathe/Hold the Charr Accountable for the Searing

eehhmm, the searing was not the act of the full charr nation, but only by the fire legion(s shamans). and well, they already kind of got their well deserved payback. 86.80.183.215 11:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the OP (Original Poster), but I used to feel the same way. However, you're right in that the shamans were hunted down both during and after the EotN campaign. The hunt most likely began shortly after the player defeats the titans in Prophecies. As Pyre explained, the shamans were the ones who manipulated their brethren into most of their actions against the humans of Ascalon and eventually beyond. Given that those freed/enlightened by Pyre and those he freed/enlightened were naturally (mostly) charr, you can expect that any remaining shaman and their followers hunted down by said charr eventually met fitting ends. To be hunted and killed by your own puppet is plenty humiliating and painful, and I'm sure the ways of charr torture are plenty helpful in that regard. Teddy Dan  11:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that as we know, the Flame Legion is still active - diminished, but active. And not one single Charr of any legion has ever expressed any remorse or regret for the Searing. Until that happens, they do not deserve respect as a race. User_Nathe_iconR.png Nathe  18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, i'm sure you don't feel bad for vanquishing the charr homelands, and that's pretty much the same thing minus a fireball. Vald [Citation Needed] User_Valdimir_newsigicon.png 18:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All is fair in love and war. The Searing was a means to an end. It was a nuke. Were you a charr, you probably wouldn't apologize for it either. Thinking that you should be apologized to just because you're a human, or anything besides innocent for that matter, is just selfish. Humanity was not innocent either before or after The Searing. They earned that nuke. Teddy Dan  18:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still no excuse for it. The Charr show no respect for the land. Otherwise they would never have done the Searing. Humanity has its faults, but race-backed ecocide isn't one of them. Drop the human-hate already. It's getting tired. And vanquishing isn't lore, Vald, so it doesn't count, therefore your argument is invalid. User_Nathe_iconR.png Nathe  18:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this will somehow be included as part of the history in the 200 year span and with the dragons posing such a threat to the whole world, every ally, Charr included is surely a necessity. Once the dragons have finally been defeated and we have GW3 then perhaps the Humans and Charr may get back to settling old scores or may simply have an uneasy peace. Lady Elyssa 19:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because the Charr caused the Searing, doesn't mean that they don't care for that land, Nathe. It might actually mean that they have a different way of caring for it. The lore on the GWW states that "Long after the Forgotten stopped threatening the Charr, the humans appeared and, with the help of their Gods, pushed the Charr from their southern boarders." Thus, the charr were re-taking their land and were trying to free the land of its, say, "pollution" - humans. The only way they could do this is by destroying the land. Just look at the Sacnoth Valley area. Its a beautiful spot (in game design and lore), and the Charr live there. They fight battles there. But it is still a really great place. The Charr are probably better about that than you think. Darkshine 03:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * RAWRRRRRR !!! In the immortal words of Pyre Fierceshot, "You know nothing of my people!".  We inhabited these lands long before you puny mice arrived.  Only through the power of your "gods" were you able to usurp it from us.  But we bear no grudge; we had become lazy and weak.  You tested us, winnowed us, and - through long years of subjugation and humiliation - reforged us in the fires of hate.  Now we have regrouped - stronger than ever - and retaken what was once our's.  It is only through you that we have learned the real truth; there are NO gods for the Charr! We thank you for the lesson you have taught us...and which we have learned all too well. If you wish to witness the architect of your own failure, you need look no further than the nearest mirror. From now until the end of all things, no apology shall ever pass our teeth...EVER! The Charr SHALL rule!!!  Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pyre also said, of his race "some of us are less evil than others." He never denied that his race was evil. And Darkshine, if they had any concern for the land, they would never have used the Searing to take it back but would have instead stuck to traditional methods. Anet admits that there is a sizable portion of the playerbase that still harbors resentment to the Charr. It was sizable enough that they mentioned it in the Anet blog in one of their Charr articles. So stop rooting for an evil race that knows nothing of compassion or integrity and knows only war and conquest. User_Nathe_iconR.png Nathe  17:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the words of... someone, "life isn't fair." For the GW universe to be a realistic world, a greater cosmic justice compelling the Charr to apologize and say sorry to all the humans one by one doesn't fit. Lord knows that they wouldn't do it on their own - their worldview is that they should conquer until they can go no further - they even see the human gods as (powerful) beings to try and kill. The Humans may demand some retribution (we now know that they have the Claw of the Khaaaaaaaaaan!-ur as a powerful bargaining piece and that would be an interesting part of the game. Think about it this way: I'm sure many GW humans would feel that the Charr did terrible things and that they should be punished, and if this were real we would too, as GW human morality is modeled after our own. However, because we can't impose our morality (or, let's face it, the GW humans' morality) on other races, we can't make broad statements about what "should" happen. Maybe with black-and-white "evil" characters but not complex races like the Charr. The Charr do not think of themselves as evil. Also keep in mind that the Charr value victory and conquest greatly, especially gaining their old lands back, and would probably jump at any opportunity to do so. And because Ascalon was their home for many years/decades/centuries, and the fact that they need the land for farming and living, I'm going to assume that they care about the land - not the same way as we do (because our morality tells us that we should protect things such as nature), but because the land is a needed resource. They probably saw the Searing as an (imperfect) means to an end, and thought that this particular end justified the destructive means. --Thunderduck 1:43 7 May (UTC)
 * Ehm...You want to hold an in-game race accountable...for ecological damage? All this looks like is a sad grasp at straws to knock the charr down a peg or something, and I can't imagine what reason you have for that. --ஸ Kyoshi [[Image:User_Kyoshi_sig2.png|19px]] 02:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't hold what you take, human, then you deserve nothing; apology or otherwise! Guild Wars 3 perhaps 04:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Charr aren't humans, and thus they do not act as a human would. It probably also gives interesting story. For example, are you a charr that is sorry that the Searing occured or not? If so, are you shunned because of this? Also, I never actually said they were concerned for the land, i said that they care for it in a different way. Perhaps I should have said that they "care" for it... Darkshine 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do have a couple of things to say about this, and the dicsussion that follows. First of, I dn't see the charr giving a crap. They just don't. Going by how they've acted in the GW world, they're still only a step or too above the Kratt, which Anet has stated are ment to be a truely evil race. In regards to the Ecological outrage of this post, in my opinion it does NOT outway the loss of human life. Its stated in lore that well over half of the Asalonian population died in the Searing and in the invasion that imeadately followed. The charr were even stated to take the human children and put them in slave camps. To the above statement about the Searing being the nuke, and Huamns DESERVING the nuke; how do you figure? It had been over a thousand years since the charr had been driven out. Not only can it be said that the charr no longer have a right to call it theirs, but NONE of the living humans were responsable for that. And looking further at the Lore, the Humans only pushed the charr back into their northern lands, not tried to wipe them out. Also, its said that the humans need their gods to take Ascalon in the first place. Guess what? The Charr needed "gods" (false as they turn out to be) to cause the Searing. Also going by lore, the Shamans had been incharge for a couple of decades or longer, so most of the population at the time of the Searing was following them and doing their bidding. I had another point to make, but I've forgotten it in writing the others. I'll just end with this; before anyone counters my statement about the thousand years since charr had had that land, a mere 250 would still exist in cultural memory, plus there still is a foothold of the old Ascalon within Fort Ebonhawk.--Will Greyhawk 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If we cant find forgivness for the Charr, even 250 years later, what does that make us? (especially considering their gonna be a rad race to play)--41.135.184.123 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And what of them? Why should they get off scot-free with no punishment at all? Such unbridled aggression as what the Charr have can only carry a race so far before it leads to self-destruction. For peace to happen, both sides need to make concessions. The Charr as well as humanity. Yet people are content to let the Charr get away with just about anything without any consequences at all, just because they're supposedly a "cool" race. Such rabid furballism annoys me. Villians don't usually think of themselves or their behavior as evil, they justify it to themselves and their fellows - just as the Charr do. They must be shown the truth of what they really are at some point, and be forced to deal with it. Otherwise they are merely selfish would-be conquerors and nothing more. User_Nathe_iconR.png Nathe  18:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

look, I can appreciate you being passionate about "justice" but when someone argues to these extremes over whats meant to be an escape from real life issues it makes me wonder if the issue is really about the Charr or about something else. that said, I'm actually in favour of you fighting this cause for the humans, I just think its to much of a generalisation to hold all Charr accountable, especially considering the political and cultural shifts within Charr society that have come to pass 250years later.--41.135.184.123 07:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Should humans then apologize for all of the charr that they have killed over the years? It makes no sense to argue that one side should apologize, while the other side is just as guilty as the first. Darkshine 19:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Only a foolish warrior walks backwards into a battle. Face front, Human, and meet the future head on!  The past is dead; let it lie.  There will never be an apology.  You can accept it or you can not; but the one thing you will never do is change that.  The truth of "what we really are" is We are not you; something else you will never change.  Besides, we have bigger things to worry about right now. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 00:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just like white people today should apologize to black people for slavery neither of them took part in alot of years ago. -Cursed Angel  20:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't, Darkshine. But it should not be all on humanity, either. Both sides must give, humanity and Charr, for peace to happen. Humanity got the Claw for them, now what are the Charr going to do for humanity in return? What are they going to give them that will have the same value that the Claw has to the Charr? Answer that question. And Angel, there is a difference here that you didn't take into account - Charr know nothing but war, either directly or indirectly, and there is no Charr that has never contributed to the overall war effort either directly or indirectly. They don't have any idea how to live without trying to conquer other races. There are some humans that do, though. Darkshine, humanity didn't do the Searing, and the Foefire and fall of Orr were the acts of individuals, not the entire race - unlike the Charr, who as an entire race supported the Searing and not a single one fought to stop it. Thus they all are guilty. User_Nathe_iconR.png Nathe  16:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "There are some humans that do, though. Darkshine, humanity didn't do the Searing, and the Foefire and fall of Orr were the acts of individuals, not the entire race" Good point, except that the charr are fighting humans because we origionally took their land from them (which was an act by humanity as a whole). And as for the Searing being suppoted by the entire race, that is not entirely true. Any who tried to fight against the Flame legion (the charr who caused the Searing) were killed as "blood sacrifices" to their "gods", but they were probably just to be used as examples to show the fact that they were in control. Thus, I still cannot see why only the charr must apologize. I will fight for Charr rights! Darkshine 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem. You are seemingly so blinded by furballism that you can't bring yourself to admit any wrongdoing by the Charr. And I don't recall the Canthan or Elonian parts of humanity taking part in pushing the Charr back in Ascalon, so it could hardly be said that all of humanity was behind that. Besides, the Charr had lost it for far longer than humanity, who still has cultural memory of the place since it's only been a quarter of the time that the Charr had lost. Either way, it doesn't matter who was there first. It only matters who has more respect for the land. And the Searing destroys any claim by the Charr for that. You also never answered my question - what are the Charr going to give to humanity that will have the same value as the Claw has to them, which humanity got for them? If they truly want peace, that is. We did them a favor, now it's their turn. Also, if the Charr are so easily cowed as to be subdued by a few sacrifices, then they're not truly as strong or fierce as you or they think. If they were truly strong, they would have fought the Legion regardless of the sacrifices until they had been overthrown and the Searing would never have happened. User_Nathe_iconR.png Nathe  16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (rolls eyes) I would fight for both sides, however the human side is covered fairly well. Its not "furballism" (for me at least). I could say that you ae an anti-furballist, but I won't. It was the Tyrians who drove the charr back, so i guess you could say it was all of Tyrian humanity. Imo, think that a charr might have less resentment for someone of Elonian or Canthan descent. The lore aspect is that both sides of the truce want peace (I think we can all agree on that). The charr don't trust humans (why should they?) and thus want a "sign of good faith": the Claw of the Khan-Ur (I think that is something else we can all agree on). The reason humans don't want anything (yet), is because they started the the peace negotiations. Who knows, maybe they will ask for something and it will become a dynamic event chain. And the reason that the charr did not fight back is because they thought that the Flame Legions "gods" actually did make them more powerful. Darkshine 17:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably sounded like a jackass saying that, and for that, I am sorry. :P Facts are still good though. Darkshine 12:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)