Talk:Kalla Scorchrazor

Untitled

i was reading the first sentance and i thought it said; "..charr heroin". and i was like: "w00t? charr drugs or what?" ^Teo^ 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Calor (t) 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

i know ^Teo^ 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah at least its the best explanation they could have given

Women's rights for atheist two-legged felines! Sweet. Kai Nui 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

...What. -- Armond Warblade 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what. Lord Belar 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh god. She's probably like hairier than a bear or something. She better not have a DD chest with a platemail bra or something Blue.rellik 07:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect she will be as hairy as any other Charr..-- pling | ggggg 12:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

She might not even be in the game.. Cress Arvein 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that. I like bewbs that are not hairy Blue.rellik 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Childishness aside, you DO realize that there will still be female Charr of SOME kind in the game, right?--70.71.240.170 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How?

how do we know she is related to Pyre?--♥Icyyy♥ 05:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Ecology of the Charr, which is an official written lore article. Arshay Duskbrow 06:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Source

Where is the source for Kalla Scorchrazor's lore change? --Ravencroft0 08:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ghosts of Ascalon. References shouldn't be used for things like the books and games, else they'd be too numerous. -- Konig/talk 08:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Konig. I've yet to pick up a copy. Next to Pyre, Kalla is(was) one of the coolest charr; I was taken aback when I read the updated lore. Still, as a note somewhere, it could be mentioned where this info came from, as long as it would not spoil the book for the rest of us, that is. If I had read the book, I might have inserted the note myself. >.< --Ravencroft0 09:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So when all three books and GW2 are out, you want us to have a reference tag for each bit of information telling where it came from? Do you know how silly that is? We'd have a million reference tags throughout the wiki - dozens on a single page. There's no need to add references for things that are 1) From GW1, 2) from the books, 3) from GW2, and 4) from documents currently documented on the wiki(s) (Movement and Ecology for instance). -- Konig/talk 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Until there is information directly from the game or the official GW2 site stating the biography of Kalla, then yes. Ghosts of Ascalon, I admit, is the closest thing to the game we have right now, but it is not the game. It's just a filler, or an appetizer. Being an researcher yourself, I would think you would realize the importance of citing your sources, lest one could believe the author is simply making it up - a fiction. Which could then be also construed as being mere speculation from a good storyteller, or bad, if the case may be.

You don't have "...to have a reference tag for each bit of information telling where it came from...," just the bits of information that are relevant. You're more a master of the written word than I am, Konig, so, then in your honest opinion, could the information whose origins come from the book not have an allusion to GoA, such as, "...among many of the males. It is revealed in Ghosts of Ascalon, that she then laid a challenge..."? And would it not look better, as well, from a researcher's standpoint? --Ravencroft0 10:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the reference I oppose. Though, generally, I tend to frown upon the use of stating "in x quest/mission/campaign, the player..." but I realize it helps in organizing. An allusion would be definably better than a long list of references, and is used on many pages where the information comes from GoA. Typically, though, it depends on how it is done and what the context is. However, to go to your original points - I find the books just as factual and common, especially GoA (considering how people bought it and tore it apart for hints at professions, locations, and other things that are loosely forced upon in lore), as the game. As such, while true it is important to references sources, it is also redundant to have to reference the source if said source is the very thing the wiki documents. This wiki documents GW2 and the novels, the GWW documents GW1. More than likely, when information relevant to GW1 is released in GW2 or the future two books, they'll get a reference tag on the GWW - but they shouldn't, imo, here.

If, however, this was a wiki for the GW universe as a whole - all games and books - then I would fully support references, because there would be so many variables for common sources (six connected GW1 "games" (3 campaigns, EN, BMP, GW:B), three books, and GW2). If, by some hopeful chance, more than three books come out and they're more relevant to GW2 than GW1 (thus is documented on this wiki instead of the GWW), and the amount was great enough, I would support referencing books so long as it doesn't get out of hand (like it has with referencing the dozens upon dozens of interviews - essentially, one out of five articles are referencing one article or another). -- Konig/talk 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"References shouldn't be used for things like the books and games": which is incredibly stupid. Ghosts of Ascalon:

• Has been written before the game has been finished, therefore the content there is subject to change.
• Is more often than not narrated from the point of view of its characters, and one of its themes is how different people see the same event differently (it even has conflicting information about the Foefire).
• Is written by Jeff Grub, who is the main expert of GW2 lore, but also by Matt Forbeck, who may have used the two points above to take some artistic liberties.

Which means, the book is not as accurate as the game, and therefore information from it may be wrong; it is, then, massively important that we document what comes from the book and what comes from the game. Ignoring such obvious reason to add references just because one person does not like the look of a reference list is what I could call "silly". Erasculio 13:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

GW2 will also have the second point, you know. Yes, the first point is true, which is why wikis can be edited. Back to the second point, we should document both sides of the story - and if the truth of the matter is revealed (without giving unnecessary spoilers in regards for books), we can document that one as saying "these people claim this, but this is the case" - the wiki is for documenting and thus we'd be documenting the views of the races, along with the truth.

As for "the book is not as accurate as the game, and therefore information from it may be wrong" Jeff Grubb did the final passing for the book, so if something will be contradicting when GW2 comes out, then it would of been retcon'd. And it isn't that I dislike the "look of a reference list" but that I hate unneeded references, which how I see it referencing one of the books is just unnecessary as referencing GW1 or GW2. Primarily the later, since this wiki is to document the books as well as the game. -- Konig/talk 13:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Charr-Age

Uhm.. Gradfather was Pyre. correct?..

its been 250 years.right?..

three generations over 250 years?.. Lolwut.--Neil • 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kalla died a very long time ago. She toppled the Shaman caste in 1116 AE, in fact. That's 28 years after EN, so Pyre was most likely a father by the time we met him. -- Konig/talk 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou master of everything <3 --Neil • 12:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And isn't Rytlock supposed to be a descendant of Kalla? Don't remember where I saw that... --Ravencroft0 18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of this. -- Konig/talk 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, its 38 years, 1116-1078=38 not 28.Crimmastermind 18:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub tag

Any reason it should stay? - 17:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it seems like it's as much as we could have for the moment. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New Revenant Elite Spec.

I heard rumors that

the new Revenant elite spec will be the longbow wielding "Legendary Renegade Stance" and it will channel none other than "Legendary Charr Renegade Kalla Scorchrazor"

Does anyone have any additional information on this Charr, or is the statue in the black citadel and the tiny bit of lore around it all we really have atm? 98.193.124.175 09:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot information, besides what you can find on the wiki. This search might help a bit. —Ventriloquist 10:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There is not a whole lot of information currently ingame, also please retain from adding any of the information from the leaked Elite specs until it has been released by official Sources. --Doctor Refrence (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)