Talk:Charr/Archive 2

Trivia

Technically the trivia is incorrect. The mongols never broke through the Great Wall of China. Every time they invaded, they simply bribed a guard at a gate house to let them through. Since the trivia is historically incorrect, I suggest that it is removed or edited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wetfart (talk • contribs).

Have at it.-- Shew 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The trivia isn't about what happened, but the similarity. -- Konig/talk 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the first part of the trivia either, I mean, there were lots of civilizations that started out as a bunch of tribes that were eventually united. And the mongols weren't united by religion like the charr, and nor did the mongols really have a claim to the lands to the south like the Charr do. I agree that there are some similarities between Ascalon's wall and the Chinese Great Wall, but that trivia would better belong in the article about Ascalon's wall not here. (Satanael | talk) 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Originally, the Charr were united by the Khan-Ur, not religion, Khan being the last name of Ghengis as well. -- Konig/talk 05:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Different Charr species is a must in character creation

Instead of skin colors we should get different fur patterns. In the current images you can see the females having leopard-like tails. It'd be awesome to have the choice out of different cat species. In GW1 we can see cheetah, leopard (the female charr tail), tiger and lion influences and fur patterns. It would be even better if you could choose body type (tail and pattern) and then change skin tone just like in GW1 for ultimate customization. The same body type option for other races could also be changes in muscle mass and fatness, like how a necromancer is skinny with bones sticking out.

Charr Culture?

Anybody mind posting some info on their culture--Knighthonor 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... there used to be a great deal of info about their culture on here, and I greatly enjoyed reading it... I suppose it was removed so as to make the Race pages have a more uniform format. Anyway, my best guess is looking on the GW1 Wiki :) After all, the info on THIS wiki regarding Charr will most likely be "present tense", if you know what I mean, whereas in GW1 Wiki it will be able to refer to their heritage/history. --Amannelle 00:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The culture is on the GW1Wiki currently. We don't really know how much of their culture has changed, as with every race, so we cannot write up an accurate article for that. Wait until GW2 is released and the wiki will have far more information. -- Konig/talk 01:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Industry

Is it just me, or are the Charr really going to look like Isengard in the LotR movies and games? With all the mechanical stuff, I'm thinking this is a main lead, especially since Saruman (the isengard guy) uses fireblasts, and charr use fire pretty often. 84.85.197.187 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Charr Get Drunk.

I wouldn't have thought obligate carnivores would enjoy boozing it up, but...from the dynamic events IGN coverage:

• you take part in a giant escort to take a herd of cattle up to a Charr meat festival, and if the cattle make it there, the Charr have the giant festival and a bunch of events chain off. The Charr get drunk and stumble off and attack areas that they shouldn't be in.

I'm now picturing a bunch of drunken Charr staggering around gnawing on anything (or anyone) within reach. I'm not sure whether to think this is scary or hilarious, but I'm tending toward hilarious at the moment. Arshay Duskbrow 22:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

probably both :P or depends what you are. Sjacie 06:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Charr Teenager

Why do we need to know what the charr teenager will look like? Will we be seeing them in the game?--IcyyyBlue(: 05:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

maybe a sort of pre searing area where your char(r) is a bit younger or maybe you can choose to play a teenage charrSjacie 06:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

there won't be a pre-searing zone, seeing how there are 5 start zone's because of different race's, maybe see younger charr like you see kids in the original games. --AlbinoAce 06:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Who wouldn't want a pubescent charr whose voice cracks all the time and has strange feelings about the charr girls? ~ Bow | 22:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just like seeing little human kids on the streets of Tyria Prince Grazel 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very possible that one of the races could have their tutorial be a pre-searing of sorts. For humans, their tutorial takes place a few days before the present. Who's to say that they can't have another race's take place a few years before the present? 173.190.45.225 23:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

God. If I may, this is something I'd like to point out. I LOVE the fact that everyone refers to it as "Pre-searing" given that it refers to a specific event. I mean I remeber a friend of mine who had played the original GW but nothing else and asked me if the other campagins had "Pre-searing" portions. Now then! Let us look at Anets track record Proph = Presearing. Factions = No presearing. Nightfall = No presearing. EoTN (Obviously it was an expansion, but still.) = No Presearing. Now of course Factions and NF (willing to disregard EoTN given it was an expansion) had Newplayer-Opolis'. However, I LOVE the fact that so many people (I have seen quite a few people discussing their assumptions of what the GW2 Presearing is going to be like. For each race.) assume that GW2 is going to have a "Before the main plot" concludes with "And now, the true story begins" *Timejump x years to the future* thing. I mean, of COURSE the humans have a few DAYS before the present, but I think that operating on that is a weak reason to assume "X-Race is going to have their tutorial take place years before the plot occurs!" I mean, another example of what MIGHT be. Slyvari = Your in the Dream of Dreams. Norn = Your first hunt. Charr: Your training with your Warband.

To me, the human one indicates it will be far more of a "Do this. No. You really dont have any choice. You can do this or stand here and do nothing."

But I have seen many FAAAR to many people discussing what they suspect the Presearing community of GW2 will be like.

However, I think it is a HUUUUUUGE assumption that a races presearing will take place when you are a youth. Why? Well we know (Unless it was simply a demo.) the human tutorial is days before, not years before. Why on earth would Anet make "Your character as a youth" graphics for a SINGLE RACE. That is just silly.

Plus presearing in gw was years before yet your character did not visibly age. No reason to assume that GW2 that will be the case... for a single race.

Of couse we may see Little Charr's running around on the streets. But I think it is a bit too much of a leap to at this point assume "Yeah, ONE race (or ALL the races but human. Or some bizzare balance of the races) will have their tutorial occur years before the game just so we can see what teenage charr look like.

I also think it is unlikely for ONE primary reason. Almost (I say almost as there may be one thing out there that was right) EVERY SINGLE fan speculation I have seen on discussion boards, forums, in game, etc. has been proven wrong. Track record suggests when the game comes out, we will look at this and go "Hindsight sure does suck, huh?" When you AREN'T teenage Charrs in the Charr presearing. --CaptainHindsight

Do you really need to use that much caps and that semi-popular writing style to give an opinion? You wrote a huge text and its still not clear what you want to say. Thta there will be no pres-searing in GW2? That people should stop to make speculation? Or you just don't like 'youth'.. Or all. Or nothing. -- Cyan 22:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And you are actually placing a speculation by saying all the above things will be excluded. However it is most likely that there is no Pre arena this time, you have no facts to prove it. =) -- Cyan 22:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it does say there is no pre-searing area in the FAQ on this wiki. It does not link a source, however. Ruse (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats why I said much likely =) I don't believe there will be such an area, there are also no sources which state there will be, but my point was that it is kind of pointless to say that people need to stop speculating. That is because we are all, less or more, speculating. Thats what you get with rumours + not that much information about the subject. -- Cyan 10:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Printing Press

Charr invented it, lending to the spread of a common written language and raise in literacy (which is a big deal). Shouldn't this be on the page? -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Added it into the trivia section. Feel free to move it or add to it. Shadow Runner 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I would've added it there, too. I really don't know a better place to add something like that lol. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be at the top (as should all lore), which needs an overall rewrite else it'll be far too big (especially seeing how it is a summary of the Ecology pretty much atm). Anyways, the charr didn't invent it, as pointed out by draxynnic on GW2Guru, the line is "unexpected boon for the New Krytan alphabet came from the charr’s industrial technology in the form of the first printing press" - no where does it say the charr invented it, but rather their technology was used to invent it. -- Konig/talk 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point, that is a little ambiguous. It could be that the charr's industrial technology is the printing press or that the charr's industrial technology is some sort of assembly press used to punch out <small part X>. It seems like this page will need to get moved to something like Charr Lore once the game comes out and we can fill these articles with stuff related to game-play. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 20:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No. No splitting lore from the actual page - ever. That is an absolutely terrible idea, one that has been brought up multiple times and shouldn't be done. Unless it is a verbatim documentation of something else - such as The Ecology of the Charr. As I said, as it is, the lore in this page is a large summary of that - so all that's needed is to make it a smaller summary (and be sure to move the main article link to a see also link). -- Konig/talk 21:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the lore isn't moved from Charr, then the technical description needs to be somewhere else. Unlike GW, GW2 is going to have a lot of game-play related information on these. Although, I guess that is what is already being done as far as I'm aware - things like Personal Storyline are given their own pages (and presumably will be linked once we actually have information pertaining to a specific race). Either way, something's being split from the page. Oh well, different subject for a different day. I wonder if they'll confirm whether or not the charr actually invented the printing press or not, the text really leans me towards them inventing it. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 02:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly disagree with a split of any kind. I think that everything dealing with the personal storyline should go to either the character creation or personal storyline pages. Other than that, and a list of NPCs (aka the categories or a table should we use one like gw1w), and a handful of things (notes, trivia), there won't be that much aside from the lore. -- Konig/talk 03:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There will be so much race-specific information (or so the dev team depicts), that it is going to take a lot of deliberation to decide the best way to arrange it. This isn't quite the time or place for that, since we can't really decide how to document hazy things of unknown sizes into manageable chunks. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Still, long pages != splitting up pages unnecessarily. -- Konig/talk 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

At least we can put [hide] tags like on gw1:Condition. That's always a good option imo. :D -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) No one said that couldn't be done. Also, Regina made a confirmation here that the charr did, in fact, invent the printing press. -- Konig/talk 19:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

about creating a charr

will we be able to make a charr thats not hunched over like Seer Fiercereign?Victor6267 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like posture depends on which weapon you have equipped. Melee weapons=hunched, caster weapons=upright, bows/guns=somewhere in between. In the race trailer there's a charr with a staff fighting frogs who's mostly upright except for the neck.99.1.41.126 03:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is definaly going to be my first character. --Blackhorns

It would be cool if your posture depended on your profession, rather than your weapon. All the Elementalists and Monks stand upright, while the warriors and rangers hunch. Necromancers and Mesmers are somewhere in the middle. And, yes, I am referring to how they are in GW1, so who knows. Maybe they developed chiropractors during the movement of the world. FleshAndFaith 04:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well from what I saw in the demo, weapons don't affect it... and neither do profession. They're all rather in-between now when they're moving, upright when standing still, and completely hunched over when their weapons are sheathed (where they also run on all fours). -- Konig/talk 08:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When replying to a comment use a : before your comment, always use one more : than the poster before you. And sign your comments by writing --~~~~

This is just to show you.

=D

Know how to do it now? --AdventurerPotatoe - 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

no

Life Span

I've been wondering about how old they live and how long their childhood is for a while now. Because Arena Net revealed that Differences in male and female looks are not as drastic as the humans are. So I'm wondering if the Charr have more similarities to Real life Cats then just that. If my guess is correct then that would mean the Charr reach adulthood faster then Humans and also have a shorter life span.--Yozuk 02:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly possible. I mean, Kalla, Pyre's grandcub, does the things she's known for in 1116 AE, which is only, what 30 years after EN? Unless Pyre's a father and a well aged fighter during EN, a charr's lifespan is most likely shorter than that of a human, which is 5-10% that of an asura and is most likely to average around the 80s (as about 100-110 would be an exceptional human lifespan). -- Konig/talk 10:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was already stated somewhere that charr live generally shorter lives than humans, although in that particular case it was attributed more to their combative lifestyle than to anything biological. Arshay Duskbrow 12:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense that they reach maturity faster, at least, given Kalla. Hard to say about death since they're so militaristic and always fighting, and we really don't know much about them besides that yet. --Kyoshi (Talk) 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can understand from what I know about cats and about the charr is that its very possible that charr a born in litters rather then just 1 at a time like humans. That combined with reaching maturity faster and their High Intellect could very easily explain various parts of their Culture. This Could also mean that less charr cubs make it to adulthood due to natural selection and could also give a good explanation for their Aggression. Their life span could also be contributed to their diet. I would imagine that the charr Are Carnivorous and don't have the stomach to be able to handle plants and seeds like humans can. And seeing as Carnivorous do have a shorter life span then Herbivores and Omnivores even when met with the perfect conditions where they wont die of starvation or killed. I do like how arena net does their story line and races. Maybe my theory will be confirmed. That would excite me!--Yozuk 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been confirmed that charr can and do eat grains, fruits, etc., they just eat way more meat than humans, and are made for such. Zolann The Irreverent 22:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have read The Ecology of the Charr. at the end it talks about what I'm talking about now. Although it doesn't answer all my questions.--Yozuk 23:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ever wonder...

This is kinda off topic but ever wonder why Charr still exist? I would've thought after the whole "There are no Gods" campaign they would've been wiped off the face of Tyria xD216.244.50.117 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that idea. The gods aren't so vengeful that they'd intervene in anything they didn't have to; they didn't even help the Sunspears + Kormir with that whole Abaddon situation. --ஸ Kyoshi 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They did help, but only after being called upon. Blessings ft...w? (And I don't mean just the blessings in the cinematic - which would need no game mechanic, tbh, since the entire next mission would have the blessing and only that - but also the blessings in the Gate of Madness mission as the players took control of the statues). -- Konig/talk 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The gods don't intervene, is the difference. They give their blessings to any creature who seeks it, but they don't intervene themselves. It's like Lyssa said in the Gate of Madness, the gods give their blessings, and those blessed are the ones who make the decisions. FleshAndFaith 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, None of the gods where at the gate of madness. Their Avatars where there to inform you of what the gods wanted them to know.--Yozuk 09:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevant to GW2?

The History paragraphs can be severely shortened, as most of the information is not relevant to GW2, but rather GW1. - Infinite - talk

True, but it IS the Charr History. --The Holy Dragons 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but that History, albeit relevant to the race is only indirectly relevant to the current state of things. I would only cover why they are currently besieging Ebonhawke and the state of the Legions amongst themselves. - Infinite - talk 21:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have been intending to get to it for some time. It should, however, be sure to be transfered to the gw1 wiki, as I am unsure if the whole history is recorded on there. Things that should remain on this wiki should be things post GW2 - in other words, the last paragraph of "Fall of fire" and "Unified once more" - the bit above what I noted should be condensed (since there are 7 paragraphs, perhaps reduce to 3?). If I get time, I'll get to it. -- Konig/talk 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reduced it a bit, but it could probably use a tad bit more trimming - not much, unless we want to force people to go to the Ecology of the Charr and just bring up non-Ecology stuff (mainly GoA and recent interview stuff). -- Konig/talk 12:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of disagree that we should be deleting some of the history because they somehow hold more relevance to one game versus the other. In both games, the entire history is relevant (except for post GW1 history maybe should not be in GWW). I like some of Konig's changes thus far in part because it enhances the accuracy and specificity of the history in some areas, but I don't see how any history of the charr could possible be more relevant to GW1 than GW2. It's still their history in GW2 just as much as in GW1. That may mean there's some overlap between the wikis, but there should be. In other words, I don't think there should be any lore in the GW1 wiki that is NOT in the GW2 wiki, since they share the same lore. (Satanael | talk) 02:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that I mostly just removed unnecessary fluff (e.g. "Although these conflicts were not completely ended, the unity of the Khan-Ur allowed the charr to expand [...]" became "Some internal conflicts remained, but the unity of the Khan-Ur allowed the charr to expand [...]" and "This strife caused a unity never seen again in the charr, one that probably could have toppled the growing human empire; however tragedy struck when the Khan-Ur was assassinated. Leaving no clear heir, the Khan-Ur’s death split the charr into four legions, beginning a power struggle that continues to this day." became "This strife caused a complete unity in the charr; however the Khan-Ur was assassinated and in leaving no clear heir, the Khan-Ur’s four children split the race into four legions."). I left as much information as possible while removing the unnecessary commentary surrounding them. -- Konig/talk 03:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to be realivant to one game or the other?? Some people would like to know as much about the Charr (or any race) as possible. Plus the information removed/to be removed isn't all making it over to the gw1 entry. So seriously. Stop deleting. I beg you. lol -- LoreJunky

Congrats on commenting on a old and finished discussion. To answer your question, there is interwiki linking for a reason - if information is relevant to one wiki but not the other, then it goes on the relevant one; if information is relevant on both, then it goes on both. History is relevant, but it's better/easier to just have a summary here and a detailed part on gw1wiki, rather than repeating the same information. To comment on your complaint: there is no "to be removed" and no one's "deleting." Most information of relevance to this section's topic is also at the Ecology of the Charr and thus is still on this wiki either way. Konig/talk 03:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind then. Forgive my ignorance. :( LoreJunky/talk

I wouldn't call it ignorance; a lot of users don't even pose this question. You just want to see lore being exact and complete. The only issue is that a massive part of the charr lore is no longer relevant to timeframe of the game we document here, which is why those parts of the lore are on GWW. ;) - Infinite - talk 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding these three edits

IMO, the over-use of sections is unnecessary. The "Religion" section is miniscule, and a race's government is part of their culture, and is also small - these two sections (religion and government) are unnecessary imo. The "Biology" section - better named Physiology imo - is not just about their looks, body, and whatnot, but also contains some of their culture (the herding bit, in particular). IMO, the information on their physiology should be in the intro header, while that which is more of their culture belongs in the culture section.
tl;dr: I'd prefer if the section structure of the page was this:

• <intro text>
• Culture
• History
• (Notes when reasonable to add)
• Trivia
• See also

This, of course, ignores the situation of the playable race information - I personally don't like it scrunched between a lore intro paragraph and several lore sections. The "Playing as a charr" section was better imo, though still needing improvements. -- Konig/talk 06:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm - I was making stuff up really. I hope you're going to check it for me Konig! :) Let me know if there is anything you think needs a reference against it.

I do think the biology section needs to stay - the section of content is pretty large and fits as a cohesive blob so I'd rather not see it mushed into the intro text. I see the intro as a summary or overview which doesn't gel with details like retractable claws and what the frequencies the ears hear at. I'll shift the ranching reference out biology if it is cultural... I wasn't sure where to fit it in elsewhere. It (the info from GoA) is in conflict with info in ecology anyways.

I wasn't sure what to do with the game mechanic aspects of it being a playable race as most of the information is housed elsewhere. I'm happy to put the section back in but I'd like to see it higher up the page to quickly direct players to game information without having to scroll (much).

As to the small sections, I'd like to keep them as they break up the big blobs of text up a bit and make it clear there is a cohesive bit of information following. I think that religion might be a more important header for some of the other races? I hated writing the government section though so I'm not so attached to them.

Thanks for the comments Konig. -- aspectacle  08:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"I was making stuff up really." I do hope you mean the sections. "It (the info from GoA) is in conflict with info in ecology anyways." Not really, both talk about herding animals, and the retired, injured, and young do these tasks (unless they simply are not in the military, I guess). Unless I misremember somewhere.

Regarding government and religion: They're really part of one's culture, and the religion aspect on race pages are never really in detail as there are other pages for that. The charr are not really religious so it would mostly be "they view gods as enemies, except for the Flame Legion who wish to make Gaheron a god. <enter historical religion of titans and destroyers here>" - the later half also being within the History section. -- Konig/talk 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

idk about making up info - but the biology section I felt like I was trying to think up interesting things to write. :) I think I misread the ecology stuff on herding, because I now agree they agree. Your edits look good - thank you. Now to sylvari. ^_^ -- aspectacle  22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

charr and magic

So for the second time in a day, the line about the charr preferring non-magical technologies and regarding magic with suspicion has been removed. So to discussion...

I don't think that I'm wrong with this. The charr have always been described as the opposites of the asura, their technologies focused on the non-magical, mechanical side of invention. Because of their history they're now quite suspicious of magic users (particularly the sharman) and we've been told that while the charr are, at times, willing to use magic as a necessary tool it is viewed with distrust and perhaps as a sign of weakness. I see this aspect of the charr to be a significant part of their racial personality. The Flame legion is a different story, but I think this article will get pretty confused if we try to describe them too.

I'd appreciate some more opinions because I'm not interested in starting a revert war on this. -- aspectacle  21:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, add it back. Makes sense, and we are not saying the charr don't use magic; rather that they think it's suspicious. Erasculio 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be there, as it is true after all. --RaGingIMP 22:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've scoured all of the canon sources of lore and have found NOTHING indicating that the charr are suspicious of magic—suspicious of supreme beings, yes, but not magic. The main page on Guild Wars 2's website states that the charr will use any means available to crush their enemies, but the word magic isn't to be found anywhere in that document. Or in the Ecology of the Charr. Or in their section of the Movement of the World. Frankly, it's untrue, and worse, it leads to many people doubting the plausibility of a charr being an elementalist, necromancer, or guardian, who all use magic with abandon. Everything that has been shown indicates that the charr are not afraid or suspicious of magic or wary of its users—their suspicion is leveled entirely on the concept of gods. If you insist that the page remain as it is, find direct, substantial, and canon quotes to back up your claims. --Mendicant 3 Feb 2011

That's because it doesn't come from any of those sources. It comes in part from an interview.

"Eric Flannum: This reaction is actually something that we were a bit surprised by. The world of Guild Wars has a tradition of using “black powder,” from the powder kegs used to blow open doors in Prophecies to the fireworks and giant turtle cannons in Factions. We thought it was a natural evolution over the course of 250 years for our races to advance their technology. This was especially true of the charr, who have pioneered the use of technology since they have given up on the notion of gods and consider the use of magic to be a sign of weakness. "

I think there have been other mentions of this and I'm still looking for the magic as a tool quote. But I think that this quote supports the statement. -- aspectacle  23:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the biography. Specifically the question about a charr's father. Eive 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to something a bit different to what it's constantly reverting to, to explain why they view magic with disdain. Probably needs revision though. -- Konig/talk 03:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Love it when people say revision. Hopefully I didn't change it too much. :) (Xu Davella 11:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Charr-Asura

Although in many official sources it states that the charr are Guild Wars 2's most advanced race, I would argue that the Asura are, or do the developers mean the most advanced non-magical culture?Jackster 18:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they meant that they advanced themselves the most technologically, but their non-magical technology is definitely the most advanced. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Asura are most advanced magically. Charr are most advanced technologically. There's a difference. And which saying "which is the most advanced" - the phrase is meaning in the technological/scientific state. Which is the charr. -- Konig/talk 18:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Legion images

If anyone is going to PAX, please supply the community with the logos of the legions if possible. 109.35.239.251 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. I would greatly appreciate it. (PS: get the other race/profession specific icons and questions.) Aqua (T|C) 01:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary, main, other... Legions

Looking at that page, and this one makes me want a really good term for the non-flame-legion legions. Primary and main sound a bit boring to me, when we could have something really cool (even if its only used by the community). Something like the metal legions, or the cold legions or something. Ideas people! Thering 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Secular legions? –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

They're the High Legions. I don't see why Flame should be excluded as that's also a High Legion. If you're talking from a playable standpoint, then they're just the "playable High Legions" - I don't see the need for a special term for the three. -- Konig/talk 21:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

For concise or lazy people. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, concise/short enough imo. -- Konig/talk 06:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it the way that it is: It's correct. -- Xu Davella 07:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to come up with any terms used just by the community (e.g. you and ~2 other people) but they're not going on an actual article. A F K When Needed 12:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

playable high legions isn't an ingame (RP) term, its strictly ooc. Secular fits, cos thats something that people in universe would know.

also, @AFK: I never intended it would go in the article, so there's no need to get sarky Thering 13:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In-game term=High Legions. The Flame Legion is not exempt from the in-game (lore) term. -- Konig/talk 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for an appropriate response to the situation... this page has the sole purpose of discussing the article. A F K When Needed 18:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Charr Week!

@guildwars2 "Next week is charr week! Check out our page on Facebook for a piece of charr concept art! http://cot.ag/5yVLh ~RB" Cirdan 18:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooo \o/ --zeeZ 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So what the heck happened to the 21st's promised update on the gw2.com charr page of a video and Jeff Grubb text??!! -.- (Usaf1a8xx 17:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Uhm, it came? You need to note that they have a new url for the races so if you're using the old one you get the old version. The main article was updated with the new url, but there was, quite literally, nothing new in that update. At least for those who knew the information already. -- Konig/talk 17:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As in, the information that fan researchers already knew got worked into the charr article on the official site, which means it is new to those who didn't do that research. - Infinite - talk 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Charr ears?

Is there a source for the segment on Charr ears picking up different sound frequencies? Because I can't find anything official that claims that. Exhibit A 00:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There will be a source because I typically don't make shit up. I think it is in Ghosts of Ascalon. I'll see if I haven't thrown out my notes and confirm and add the reference later today if someone doesn't beat me to it. -- aspectacle  00:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the page history, sauce is a chat with Katy Hargrove. Chriskang 01:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That sauce isn't as tasty as I expected. :/ Here is a forum post from who appears to be the original source of the second hand information: @penny arcade forums. While I'm cautious to accept info second-hand from a source who isn't trusted by the GW community, this person reads as pretty reasonable and intelligent. I'll add it to the article. -- aspectacle  03:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I say add it in. With all that actual information there I'd find it hard to believe that he made up that last portion. - 04:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's probably true that Katy said that. My concern is that Katy is an artist (very talented besides) but not a game designer. I tend to believe that she said that as a joke or to get rid of the dumb question: "why did you draw it like that?" But I'm not sure it's canon lore-wise and agreed by the game designer team. Chriskang 08:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that artists would know some of the lore too - either in being told that they'd have such, or by coming up with it and telling the designers such. I also recall Regina mentioning/confirming this fact over on Guru2, but I may be mistaken on that. -- Konig/talk 09:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is misleading peace treaty not Ebonhawke's idea

Should say that peace treaty was forced on the Ascalonians by the Krytans, after all Ebonhawke did not ask for it. Ramei Arashi 04:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And how do you know that? Just because one former Ebon Vanguard member didn't, doesn't mean none of them want peace. If for nothing else than to recuperate and strengthen themselves - after all, they've been at war for 250 long years, they're bound to be worn out and needing rest. Ramei, you really need to stop trying to impose your own opinions as what others should think or believe (you've been doing that all the time on Guru2). -- Konig/talk 05:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone does that on Guru2 unless I am highly mistaken.

People here will be judged by their actions here. And only here. A F K When Needed 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone, and I know that but that's what his actions have been becoming here as well. -- Konig/talk 20:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Then kill him.

You get loot now for killing other players, didn't ya know? A F K When Needed 13:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're the one Koning, imposing your opinion on every one. Obviously you've forgotten the black armored seraph enforcing the Krytan queen's wishes on Ebonhawke. Ramei Arashi 05:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall reading anything that says they're enforcing anything - but rather that they're providing support. And no, I'm not imposing my opinion on anyone, for anything. Please prove where I state something as fact when it has not been stated as such and did not admit I was incorrect (as no one is perfect, but when I am proven wrong I do retract my stance). -- Konig/talk 05:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Gestation Time

How long is supposed to be? On the blog story Via isn't yet healed from the branded attacks, and she carries a 2 weeks old cub. So it should have been like: make baby and suddenly the baby borns. Other options would be that Feror and Via traveled for several months and were attacked more times so Via was again slashed, or that this is a second travel with Via crossing the brand by herself to bring the cub to the ash legion, but for what I read it seems like this are the same unhealed scars from the beginning. Lokheit 11:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

she was already pregnant at the time? Getefix 11:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The two charr seem to develop their sentiments during the storyline, he seemed careless of her becoming a branded creature, wich shouldn't be the case if she were pregnant of his son. Lokheit 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Charr parents and children really don't care much for each other and almost never keep in touch.

While I expect mothers care for their offspring, there's no evidence that Charr males are in any way paternal. A F K When Needed 15:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: most feline species. - Infinite - talk 17:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

bascially I assume she was pregnant before the mission, Two charr do not need to love each other to have a child if anything they probably see it as "More Soldiers" and we don't know how long this mission was, it could've been a long 5-6 month trek or so, who knows, it's not specified but it's likley she was pregnant near the point Feros protected her, probably the reason he protected her, and maybe some emotional bond it's hard to say with charr... they're like a race of Clint Eastwood Zachariah Zuan. 11:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Charr do not love, they mate. It's not a human-based race. As above, feline species don't care much for their off-spring. But ye, she was probably carrying during the mission itself. - Infinite - talk 11:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

the blog said that she waited a moment longer to let the cub play with her ears or something, if thats not affection what is it? Getefix 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mother's instincts. Even psychologically stressed mothers can be fascinated by their off-spring, but it's not a given that it is out of affection. - Infinite - talk 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Artistic liberties and/or giving the charr human (un)characteristics? - 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Only choosing characteristics of the Sire?

I guess the mothers don't matter as much...unless "sire" implies something else. Though, in the recent story with Via she does drop the cub off with the sire's legion. 159.153.4.96 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's in reference to the father though I don't know of anything that says that the "mothers don't matter as much" - I believe Ember in GoA mentions that cubs are dropped off at one of the two parents' legion's fahrar, not solely the father's - though I may be misremembering (too lazy to go look through the book atm). I think it may be more of a case of the mother being set-in-stone in terms of the game's actual storyline. -- Konig/talk 03:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find that in GoA in a quick skim, but it does state specifically that cubs are raised in the fahrar's crèches (like the blog) and that they only respect their elders (presumably including the parents) as that. The family is their warband and I imagine they grow into the regime of their Primus' raising (which is probably not father nor mother). In that sense, all the influence charr parents have is the biological gene pool and where the cubs are dropped off. - Infinite - talk 06:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Female Charr and their "mammary glands" need changing

http://www.arena.net/blog/the-artistic-origin-of-the-charr

It clearly states in this page they do NOT have boobs (tits, whatever you like to call them) at all. I know it sounds weird for a mammal, but I'm gonna have to believe the official blog, and no topic that thinks things different. (I assume they didn't read the complete blog.) Tell me what you think. 82.92.37.115 09:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

they're hiding underneath the fur/armor. So they have them, but the "Breasts" don't show. At least I think thats what the blog was meant to say. But then again I'm not exactly an authority on the subject so.... --BriarThe Spider 09:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"But really, the armor augmentation required for six boobs would be just as ridiculous, so none it was!" --Xu Davella 09:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x2 They do have breasts. They were left out in-game due to rendering issues (and haters). The article linked speaks of the artistic origin of the charr, not the physiology. - Infinite - talk 09:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly someone wasn't reading. 82.92.37.115 09:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I mean it, I could't agree any less about that they should have them. It's not so badly about the visuals. They can be hidden for all I care. But the blog still states they have absolutely nothing to hide there. 82.92.37.115 09:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are so obviously convinced they don't have them outside the artistic range, then by all means; Be bold. - Infinite - talk 09:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very convinced. But I do not want to set any changes until it's fully confirmed. I'm not saying the current statement on this page should stay there, either. 82.92.37.115 09:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the note seemed out of place. Also, it's not like we note that humans usually have D cups. --Riddle 14:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The blog was talking about deciding whether to make them with obvious boobs or not - not mammary glands. They have mammary glands, but they're akin to cats - flat and hidden by fur. I altered the note to reflect such and moved it to the physiology section. -- Konig/talk 17:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

One of you could have actually read the page... Mammary reference has been there for weeks now. -- aspectacle  22:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hence, "I always thought the note seemed out of place." --Riddle 02:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually did read the page, but didn't spot the line so I just moved the note up. I thought it was mentioned before, guess I was right... -- Konig/talk 04:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As Konig said, felines have flat glands and hidden by fur. Primates have what we could call "boobs" (as the form of the glands). Humans have, and as weird as it's to even pronounce (type) it, gorillas and other primates have. But putting a cat on 2 legs doesn't make her grow boobs instead of her glands, this is not like for example Tigra from the Avengers comics because Tigra is originally human. Probably Charr would find very weird a female with boobs from their perspective. The best way to recognize between male and female charrs is the tail form instead of having boobs or not. Lokheit 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Female Charr tail

I don't know if this is the right place to post this...but I have been looking at this video and I noticed that the tail is not fluffy anymore. I hope they put the option to customize the tail. Take a look at this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4mMHFeBHjk KristinaBlueBlur 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Still looks fluffy to me... Konig/talk 20:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At the end...but not as fluffy as here 1:08 [1] KristinaBlueBlur 20:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the profession is different (elementalist in new, warrior in old) - that may influence certain pieces of the character creation (considering the different armor options). I recall seeing tails that were like the "new" one at PAX and Gamescom last year. Konig/talk 20:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's random then.I certainly hope that you can customize tail during character creation.KristinaBlueBlur 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a little odd. From the various gameplay videos we've seen, it's clear that you can make a male Charr with more "feminine" features (smaller, smoother horns; smaller teeth), and a female charr with slightly more "masculine" features. Although upon close observation, one should be able to tell the gender despite this, I think allowing female Charr to have the less fluffy tails might not be wise. The tail difference is the easiest and quickest way to identify gender. -Drasi, 13 August 2011

I completely agree with you on that. I truly hope they didn't change their tail.KristinaBlueBlur 11:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)