Talk:Flame Legion

Why was the Gold Legion left out of the most recent interview? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.13.29.136 (talk • contribs).

Players can't be evil, which the members of the Gold Legion are essentially.-- Shew 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference sake: Gold Legion=Flame Legion. By the way, it seems that the official term used for the legion is still Flame Legion. -- Konig/talk 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad article

Not only terribly incomplete (it has to mention how the legion was originally called the Flame Legion, and began to be called the Gold Legion out of spite), but also badly writen. I have added some of the history of the legion and reworded a few notes, but the article still needs to be cleaned up. I have also removed the infinity of links to GW1, as those are bad for navigation, and anything of relevance to GW2 has an article here. The single box linking to the GW1 wiki is enough. Erasculio 15:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fanfiction?

I'dl ike to know how this was fanfiction? As far as I'm aware everything in there is factual and verifiable. The revised version is not only incorrect (it states that the Legion's name is actually the Gold Legion, this is just the name used by the majority of Charr outside the Legion), but it fails to mention important details such as the Titans and Destroyers. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know too, because Erasculio seems to call anything which isn't his own rework of articles as "fan-fiction." Let me state what fan-fiction is: Fan made fiction is information that is not canon to the lore, basically what is not confirmed or stated by Anet (whether directly or through the games/articles). The things Erasculio constantly removes is canon lore. He seems to remove the lore which he views to be unimportant for the articles - which then leads to people not knowing lore fully, and the wiki is the best place for accurate lore, to be honest, as the second best place (the lore forums on Guru and GWO) is about theories, not facts. -- Konig/talk 19:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Beats me. I notice the current version doesn't mention anything which would require a link back to gww to explain it - Erasculio's bias against such things might be in play. -- Aspectacle  22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have time to waste explaining how the Guild Wars 2 Wiki is about Guild Wars 2, not Guild Wars 1, or pointing the flaws in each phrase of a long winded and badly written article (for an example, "Player characters may not be members of the Gold Legion, so it is speculated that they are the antagonists of the Charr story": no, it's the opposite; Arena Net has stated that the Gold Legion is an antagonist, which is the speculated reason behind Arena Net's decision of not allowing players to be part of them).

The problem with low priority articles is how the lowest denominator is free to edit them and few people bother to actually aim for quality. It would be nice if the fanfiction writers in the wiki could refrain themselves and add only relevant content that has been proven as real, instead of their misguised assumptions. Erasculio 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I've dealt with you enough times that I know not to really care what you think. People like me and Konig have put a lot of time and effort into this wiki. None of us are here for any material gain, we just want to make a quality, interesting guide to Guild Wars 2. Calling us "the lowest denominator" is pretty low, even for you. I couldn't say whether it violates GW2W:NPA, but it definitely violates GW2W:DICK. Work on your attitude, Eras. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no GW2W:DICK. There's also no GW2W:NPA and no GW2W:1RR; none of those are official policies. I do wish there were a GW2W:SHUTUP saying, "If you have no idea what you're talking about, shut up", but alas, we're not there yet.

As always regarding the wiki, wait until there's consensus for a change before trying to implement it. Two fanfiction writers agreeing to keep false information on an article is not consensus, so revert it is. Erasculio 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I like how you say how we have no policy on personal attacks or 1 revert rule, and then moments later you say "as always regarding the wiki" when talking about consensus. If you're going to contradict yourself, at least try not to do it in the same comment. Additionally, saying anything about consensus at all is pretty rich coming from you. I think this sums it up pretty well. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this tangent isn't the most constructive in improving the article, let's re-focus on the issue here. I'd try and give my personal opinion, but I'm not the most informed on lore and whatnot, so I'll leave it to you guys. Might I stress to keep things civil and productive. -- pling 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that I have never put incorrect information as canon. Yes, I write a fan-fiction, but I keep that well away from canon lore. I do not go saying that there is a lich that is from before the exodus by the name of Konig Doric or anything like that. The most "debatable" lore comes from the Taiwanese official GW1 site and has sense been removed since the release of Nightfall, the translation of which can be found in the first comment (only the first comment, everything else is speculation based on the canon lore) here. The reason for it being debatable is because it was removed from the GW1 site, and never on non-Taiwanese translations, so it might be possible to have been removed from canon lore (i.e., "retcon'd") - however, we have nothing which hints at that except for the lack of it now - but lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking, as a fellow lorist once said.

That said, both mine and Santax's reworks of this article have been completely accurate - that line which you quoted, Erasculio, was ironically made by you as seen here. -- Konig/talk 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Rather than editing the page with another extensive rewrite I've created a third option in my user space. I've included the extended history and links back to gww from Santax's version and kept the structure from Erasculio's version which I think will be useful when information from the game hits the page. I've not actually confirmed the information myself only borrowed from the two versions, so please if there is anything factually incorrect go ahead and edit my version or let me know. -- Aspectacle  02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved my copy across as the discussion on this dispute has apparently stopped. -- Aspectacle  03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think most of it is redundant (since we are linking to the GW1W article about the Flame Legion, which is where all the details about the link between the legion and the Titans should have been, there isn't any need to state it again in this article), but there's a more important problem: the name of the article is wrong. The legion's official name is "Flame Legion", and that's the name Arena Net has been using more recently. We should move this article to "Flame Legion" and redirect there from "Gold Legion". Erasculio 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The naming issue was something I was going to bring up when it was really apparent that the discussion on the content level was finished. I tend to agree that Flame Legion is the better name, especially that on the official site they call them the Flame Legion still.

Wrt duplicated content; I'm not too worried about duplicating content here with the gw1 wiki if the topic has relevance to gw2. I think it is good to be able to read summary history here before getting directed off to gw1 land and a bunch of detail (ie gw1 gameplay stuff) which isn't necessarily interesting for a gw2 reader. -- Aspectacle  04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not too worried about duplicating content here with the gw1 wiki if the topic has relevance to gw2."QFT (btw, what does Wrt mean? Never heard of that :p). History, even if it is a summary of GW1 events, I think it more than fine here. If we worry to much about that, then there will be a lot of missing things on this wiki, and the point of a summary is to summarize - the whole of things that take place/matter in GW1 can be on the GW1W, while a summary can be on this wiki. It's like the summary on the top of an article which is then spilled out in detail later - except in this case, there are two summaries: the summary of the GW2W article, then the details of the GW2 knowledge which includes a summary of the GW1 events, and then the GW1W article (via link). Think of it as one big article with two summaries, instead of two articles on the same thing which shouldn't be duplicating content. -- Konig/talk 08:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

wrt -> with regard to. I see it a bit where I work, but I don't know whether is it common? -- Aspectacle  11:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Flame Legion is the "official" name I imagine the most commonly referred to name in-game will be the Gold Legion, since that's what Charr of the other Legions (the player Legions) will refer to it as the the Gold Legion. Talking about it primarily using an often-disused name could confuse players who haven't played GW1. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Going with what we currently have as opposed to what we suspect we might have in future, Flame Legion seems better than Gold. If we see that Flame is sufficiently disused after release, we can move it back then, but right now I'd go for Flame. Also, our target audience right now comprises of only (ex-)Guild Wars players, so using two names for one thing (despite one of them being used more recently/commonly) would be more confusing. -- pling 17:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gold Legion" is used by enemies of the Flame Legion to mock them. Source-- Shew 18:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gold Legion", as pointed out, is an insulting term - not the "real" term, and it can be viewed by some to be on par to the N word. It is far from the official word, and if used, it would be used in a spiteful manner. I doubt that everyone of the non-Flame Legions will be using that term, just those who have a particular hatred for them. It's the same as Zhed (and other centaurs) calling humans "two-legs" - same idea. -- Konig/talk 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ecology of the Charr states that, "The name spread, and within a hundred years only a few Charr outside the Gold Legion bothered to remember the original name. Those of the Gold Legion, hated and reviled, stood opposed to the other three, struggling to stay alive and find a way to regain their former place–within inches of the crown of Khan-Ur.". --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

With the constant use of Flame Legion instead of Gold Legion, and the most recent interview saying "the Flame Legion, mockingly called the ‘Gold Legion’ by their foes" - it seems that the official term is Flame Legion. The article should be called by its official term - same reason why we have an article on GW1W called Mursaat and not Unseen Ones, despite most of the game they're called Unseen Ones. A redirect and a mention that the Flame Legion is also called the Gold Legion is enough, to be honest. -- Konig/talk 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's true that most of the promotional material recently has called it the Flame Legion, but I still think we should stick with the only "in-universe" lore we have on the matter at the moment. People will be searching for "Gold Legion" rather than "Flame Legion" when the game comes out. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're basing that mostly on speculation as to what will be the case after release. We're basing it on what we're seeing now with the target audience we have now. Frankly, you're not convincing me. -- pling 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) All I'm saying is that it's explicitly stated in one of the few "in-universe" sources of lore we have that nearly everyone in the "player Legions" (which is the point of view we should be writing from, no?) has forgotten that it ever used to be even called the Flame Legion - a direct contradiction to the claim that "just those who have a particular hatred for them" will be using the term. But I'm willing to drop it, seeing as the general consensus seems to be to "leave it as it is and then wait and see". I just wish there'd been a discussion before the move - isn't that what we have {{move}} for? --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be writing things in the point of view of players informing people about GW2, not as characters documenting our travels around Tyria; out-of-character > roleplay, I suppose. The "real world" sources (including the official website) contradict the GW2-world sources (well, not exactly contradict - they just use Flame over Gold). They're also more recent. -- pling 18:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Learn from their lessons

I took that bit out when i edited it last because the article says "They are trying to learn the lessons of the past." which isn't the same as "they intend to learn from their old lessons". The first is an ideomatic phrase, the second just makes no sense, and i couldn't see how to put the first in the article in a way that flowed. So, imo, either change the phrase to actually be the quote or remove it because it's a horrible bit of english, not leave it as is. Thering 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, better wording kyoshi, good work. Although i don't really feel i should be talking as if i can do grammar atm... but that what you get for editing wikis at 3 in the morning i suppose Thering 03:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was humans not charr who took out both titans and destroyers

What nonsense this is "The actions of Pyre Fierceshot quickly removed the destroyers from their position of worship, striking a blow to the power of the Shaman Caste." It was humans who killed the destroyers not that idiot Pyre Fierceshot. Charr history seems to be nothing but a pack of lies, crediting charr with what was actually human heroics. Ramei Arashi 06:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing history in a fantasy game? I'm not going to lie, I've never been clear where the line between Guild Wars 1 ends and Guild Wars Beyond content began was, so I'm not exactly sure where our characers actions actually aren't ours, I do understand WiK and WoC aren't actually our characters actions, or at least that's how it was explained to me. Regardless of that though, pyre is a hero and whether or not you use him, he did participate, and if you did the ebon quests first one could argue he had a substantial role. Also it's pretty common, both in fantasy and in real life, for people to write history in the way they want it to be remembered, and considering charr hate humans, it's not really surprising at all. Also, you only helped the charr because of Pyre, so it's not really that dishonest.Headache 08:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I like how you comment on the History of the Charr, your rambling actually sounds as if it's quoted from one of the Human-NPC's in GW2. anyhow, A-net has stated that the whole what's you're story thing is to give players a feeling as if they're really a part of the world around them. @ GW1 it was as if your character had never existed. Thus explaining why it doesn't say: A group of Humans have destroyed the destroyers. but Pyre Fierceshot has. your characters aren't legendary heroes who saved the world multiple times in GW1, you're just some guy in the background. --The Holy Dragons 09:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're all wrong in this. It wad because of Pyre that the destroyers could be found as it was his intelligence that led the humans to the stronghold. Pyre was, effectively, the leader of that group and thus it was because of him - it never states he was the sole reason. The sentence is not wrong, but it isn't precise either, nor should it be as we have the gww for the preciseness of gw1 events.

On the unrelated Beyond content, only WiK is written from a perspective where the PC doesn't matter. Konig/talk 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, Pyre is an important figure in Charr history, more or less; however, you must also admit that the real reason the Flame Legion is no longer in power is humanity. Humans played the largest role in dethroning both the titans and the destroyers and Pyre would have died in a charr prison had it not been for the ebon vanguard. One might say that the current mode of Charr civilization is the result of active human manipulation while the era of Flame Legion dominance was a result of human influence and interaction. I've altered the entry to descrive the actions of our heros as the work of "Ebon Vanguard Operatives" since we were carrying out the orders of the Vanguard leader at the time and our characters appear to have some form of rank within the Vanguard.--Shai Halud 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is also a matter of perspective; from the charr's point of view, it was most definitely Pyre who accomplished all of it. However, the events prior — which are known to the Ebon Vanguard (and directly the PC, because we were sent on that mission in the first place) — lead up to what Pyre did (admittedly, in a group with the PC leading the charge). Without those events, indeed, Pyre would have not gotten that chance (for all we know). However, it was important for charr development and their historical entries that Pyre took the credit for what was accomplished as a group. I doubt a human taken the credit would have had an equal impact. - Infinite - talk 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no reason why our wiki entry should not be more objective. Saying Pyre overthrew the Flame Legion is like saying Vladimir Lenin overthrew Tzarist Russia. I'm sure its what they taught in Soviet history classes but that doesn't put it anywhere near the truth.--Shai Halud 18:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the entry should be written from a completely objective manner and the current phrasing reflects this. Good work. :) - Infinite - talk 18:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) While I think the current phrasing is fine, you have to remember that neither Pyre nor the Vanguard and the PC were the ones who took down the Flame Legion. Kalla Scorchrazor, Pyre's granddaughter, did. And Pyre was the one who changed the charr mindset into being open to accept joining Kalla's revolt. Which is why he was credited and the humans weren't. What the humans did was win the first battle — it's not enough to win the whole war, and that was the work of Pyre and Kalla's work. I'm surprised no one mentioned this before in all this talk. -Alarielle- 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Flame Legion Effigy Lore should be more detailed here

I had to dig around to find more lore on this cultural part of the Flame Legion. I personally feel this page should have more detailed information on this aspect of their culture and how they are made.--Knighthonor (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

DO we actually know the lore behind effigies? I can't recall that coming up in game, and they've been around since GWEN.SarielV 04:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Tribunes in Effigy and its counterpart is the best I can think of. Konig (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)