From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Running/Walking animation[edit]

So the only thing that i have an issue with for the charr is the running/walking animation or whatever it is. I just don't like the whole running on all fours deal. Is there an option to turn that off so you are always walking to 2 legs? Or do you only run on all fours when you have increased speed or something? Or is the running on all fours the normal for certain classes or is it normal for all of them. I'm just confused on what the options are for this. I don't like the running on all fours. Does anybody have any information on this? Funkyguy4000 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the running is on 4 legs and normal walking is on 2 legs. So far I know there isn't any information about optional alternative movement for characters. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 15:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Felines generally do that using four legs. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Before they implemented walking as a feature, I know that running on all four was forced when your weapons were put away. So even if walking has it on all fours (which would be stupid, tbh), you can just always have your weapons out to be upright. I could see a desire for the charr to be able to run on two, or even walk on all fours (moving stealthly and all that), but I don't think its implemented - if the latter is, I hope crouching or norn running on all fours when in a form (ala wolf form) would be possible. Konig/talk 16:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
At first I didn't much like the idea either, but as I've watched the Youtube videos it has grown on me. The Charr are a feline race, and more animalistic then any of the others. It just makes sense that they would be able to move on four feet or two just as comfortably. But yeah, if you don't want your Charr running on all fours just have him or her carry weapons where they go. Weindrasi 00:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Weindrasi
Yea, the idea has grown on me a little bit. The ideas said before about crouching and then going on all fours for stealth is probably one of the coolest ever. They should totally implement that. I for one am trying to choose between an asuran warrior and a charr warrior. the asuran warrior hold their greatswords over their shoulder like Cloud Strife from final fantasy 7 which is super awesome. But the charr have like the warband elite skill and they look just alot more b.a. Theres still a good chunk of time for me to decide what I want to play Funkyguy4000 15:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Running on all fours is my favorite thing about the charr, and its why I'll probably change my main from Human to Charr Joe The User Joethepirate Calico Jack flag.png -- Pirate 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
They should also have an option for one-legged hopping. Felix Omni Signature.png 00:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Only if I can get a three-limbed charr. Konig/talk 13:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I love the four-legged run, it fits the Charr character! Tenebris 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Being crippled comes pretty close to that. Video --zeeZUser ZeeZ Sig.png (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From the most recent beta, it looks like the charr can also run like any two-legs. Second video clip in this article by Kotaku. Mediggo 16:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From my observations of videos and the like, there's "in combat" running and "out of combat" running - then on top of that there's also drawn weapon and sheathed weapon for each. Each gives different speeds (drawn and in combat slows down). Only way to run on all four for charr is to be out of combat with sheathed weapons. Konig/talk 16:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Does anyone have a general guideline for names, especially the first part of their names (we all know surnames are detrmined by legion, warband or special deed / achievements, but nothing of the first part of their name.

that's the same as asking for a guideline for human names. --you like that don't you..The Holy Dragons 12:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This thread on Guild Wars 2 Guru will be the biggest help you've ever had. If it doesn't answer all your questions, feel free to pose your questions in a new reply and we'll see it answered as soon as possible! :) - Infinite - talk 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The first name is variable, it can be pretty much any name you come up with. I'd say make something up that sounds cool and go with it. As for the second name, generally the first word in the second name is the Charr's warband title (Ex: Fierce, Blood, Venom, Rage, Blade...). The second word can, again, be anything you like. Sooo say you make up a Charr, and decide its first name will be Virganda. Then, say you like the idea of being in a "Star" warband. Then your Charr's name would be Virganda Star. Add something to the end you think is cool... Like fire. Virganda Starfire. It's all about being creative. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Fun fact to note: In the first Blood Legion personal story mission, you have Cerosi Breaksteel and Rage Steeltongue of the same warband - the steel warband (which is also the PC's warband as Legionnaire Urvan Steelbane is your legionnaire aka warband leader). So it seems that charr warband names can be the suffix of their last name as well as prefix. Konig/talk 12:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been having trouble coming up for a name for my charr toon. The following is what I picked up from this and the GW1 wiki, from the GW2 novels, and from the blog posts, especially Ree's.

  • First name is given at birth. As a given name, it will most likely not be related to your profession unless Charr infants can display magic or proficiency with weapons at so young an age (Ember Doomforge is not an Elem).
  • The first names can take many forms. It's either
  • On the other hand, it's possible that you can change your first name later on, probably through exemplary performance as a Charr soldier. At least this is to account for Charr whose first name do reflect their profession.
  • Second name is based on your warband and likely matches your profession.
  • However, some warbands have members with completely different second names, such as the one Rytlock was running in at the start of Edge of Destiny (Korrak Blacksnout, Sever Sootclaw).
  • Put together, I suspect that some Charr are given their warband name upon becoming official and active soldiers of their legions like in some sort of coming-of-age ritual. Afterwards, as warbands suffer casualties and are reinforced or reformed, warbands end up with members from different origins. --Messenger 13:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I forgot: the Charr love the letter "R". ;-) --Messenger 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In the beginning of EoD, wasn't Rytlock with a centurion - meaning more than one warband? Konig/talk 21:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes; that was Centurion Korrak Blacksnout who had 300 charr under his command. But he, Sever Sootclaw and Rytlock were traveling in a distinct squad-sized group referred to specifically as the "command corps". After the Logan's trap buries most of the charr in rubble, it's only this particular squad that Rytlock commands to hunt down Logan's scout party while the rest regroup.
Either this "command corps" consisted of leaders of warbands put together for leadership purposes (which I find unlikely, inefficient and inconsistent with the warband-based division of the Charr) or it really was Korrak's own warband. If the latter, we have to reckon that Sever Sootclaw was truly a member of it. In fact, his deference to Korrak's command makes him unlikely to be an officer from another warband and more likely to be Korrak's right-hand-charr. If so, we find two charr in the same warband with two different second names.
This and the quests/events from the Charr starting area really make me think that warband members can end up with different names due to attrition. Is the rule/custom/tradition of changing your last name practical with the constant state of warfare among the Charr? Is it necessarily followed by all? I imagine some charr wanting to keep their second names in honor of fallen comrades. --Messenger 06:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Command corps sounds like the leaders of the group, thus I'd imagine they'd be the legionnaires and thus of different warbands. Also, I'd say a difference to someone's command would imply not being in the same warband.
Anyways, the charr do change their surnames when changing warbands. From The Ecology of the Charr: "A Charr moved from her original warband still holds loyalties to that first “family” (and therefore, such movements are unusual), however, that Charr must change her name and quickly learn to fit in with new companions or she will be nothing more than meat on the battlefield. " I forgot about this in my previous comment, but should of noted it immediately. Warband members always share the same root in the surname (though there is evidence to suggest that it could be either the prefix or the suffix of the surname). Konig/talk 10:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Except that we also have an in-lore exception to that rule: Rytlock Brimstone. He was Rytlock Brimstone as a "rogue" under Korrak Blacksnout's Iron Legionnaries in Edge of Destiny, and yet is still Rytlock Brimstone as tribune in Ghosts of Ascalon. He kept his name throughout. Sure, Rytlock's a badass with a rep and Sohothin as well, but he still had to reenter Charr society. Is Rytlock the biggest, most successful gladium in a nation that seems to look down on them more than they do the shaman caste? Still, the fact is that Rytlock managed to keep his original second name- which means other charr can do the same. --Messenger 14:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Uhhh... Rytlock never changed warbands. Nor was it ever really stated he was a gladium (also, we don't know if gladiums change their surnames). He was a Blood Legion tactician sent to work with Korrak (not for him), and then he rose in ranks to a Blood Legion tribune sent to work in the Black Citadel. Never was it stated he was a gladium (just that he distanced himself from his warband because they didn't get along or some such), and never was it stated that he changed warbands. Konig/talk 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Rytlock wasn't "sent to work with Korrak" as if it was an assignment; he clearly says that he chose to leave his warband and legion, and later volunteered to accompany Korrak's force on his own initiative. That's a gladium no matter how you look at it: a charr without a warband, and not because he was officially "detached" (like Ember Doomforge). That he left them rather than lost his warband in combat makes it worse by the standards of Charr society. Korrak was giving him a hard time for that, and even the fact that he was a Blood Legionnaire- an outsider to Korrak's Iron Legionnaires- is a consequence of him being without a warband. With or without the explicit declaration by ANet's lore people that Rytlock changed warbands, the fact remains that his rise through the ranks was either accomplished fully solo (a gladium by any other name, and thus bucking core Charr tradition) or with a rejoined group (still bucking Charr tradition by keeping his name). Either way, the impracticality of combat-surviving charr constantly changing their second names in tune with their new warbands and their strong-willed mindset leads me to believe that the rule about changing your name to match your new warband is not as absolute as it appears. --Messenger 04:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) *sigh*

  1. Rytlock is never called a gladium. If he was a gladium - a term we knew for a long time by the writing of EoD - he'd be called one. Yes, I was wrong about being assigned rather than being a volunteer (and how is volunteering a "consequence"?) because he "couldn't stand" his warband, but that does not mean he is a gladium. Being assigned apart from his warband doesn't mean he isn't part of it.
  2. Even if Rytlock was a gladium, he never joined Korrak's warband - Korrak was Iron, Rytlock was always Blood. And again, nothing states that gladiums change their surnames - and even if they did, he never joined a new warband, so his name wouldn't change.
  3. Charr hold their duty above all else, then legion, then warband. It is their duty to change their surnames. If we're told this is the case by ArenaNet then it is the case until we're told it is no longer the case by ArenaNet (and game=by ArenaNet too). But since the game can't/shouldn't force a warband name on players, it should be expected that any members of the PCs warband will either be without a surname, or keep their old ones - but that's not really lore but rather "breaking lore to fit character stories/random names". Konig/talk 04:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Let's note that Rytlock's statement of not being able to stand his warband is meant as snarky reply to Korrak; as such, it's likely that Korrak was speaking factually of Rytlock's status. More importantly, it doesn't matter that Rytlock isn't called a gladium because he functionally and by definition is one.
  2. I never claimed he did, as I noted the particular context of the term "volunteer" in Rytlock working for the Iron Legion in that instance. Furthermore, I never said that gladiums change their surnames either, just that they'd have to upon joining a new warband in order to return to mainstream Charr society. What I am referring to is Rytlock's return to the Blood Legion and how he stayed with them until the present day without changing his name. Did he rejoin his warband? That would be strange and difficult after he was busted down to doing menial tasks. On the other hand, if he had to join a new warband, why didn't he change his second name to fit in? This is addition to the ambiguity of the positions of Korrak Blacksnout and Sever Sootclaw within the same group of charr.
  3. As much as we admire and look up to ANet, it's still possible for them to make a mistake, in this case lore discontinuity. It happens all the time in other video games, comics, books, films, TV shows, etc. It's just like the lack of definition on what a charr shaman is. It's also understandable given that much of the story and world-building is under development: Edge of Destiny was published on Dec. 28, 2010 (and whose final draft was completed much earlier) while the Legions of the Charr article came out almost four months after. And besides the ambiguities I'm picking up here, there's also the practical aspect to consider: the Charr have a militaristic society- how practical would it be for its veterans to keep changing their names each time they join a new warband? Constant combat is a reality for the Charr, so having to join new warbands as part of reforming after losses is not unusual. But that means some survivors have changed their names, maybe even more than once. How do you then keep track of charr who've changed their names as they move from warband to warband? The first name may remain constant, but it gets confusing in the event two charr or more are namesakes. --Messenger 10:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Working at a distance is not the same as no longer being a part of a group. He acts like a gladium, so by function is he one, but he is not a gladuim in title nor definition. Gladiums are the lowest of the low and it would be rare to willingly become one - distant assignments (for whatever reason) is not the same as becoming a gladium.
  2. You imply - again, might I add, in your very response - that he did join Korrak's warband (or a warband underneath him). "Rytlock's return to the Blood Legion" This is your reply's implication. If he "return"ed to the Blood Legion, then he left and Korrak is Iron. But he never left the Blood Legion, nor did he ever leave his warband (just distanced, I reiterate).
  3. Yes, Anet does make continuity mistakes, though what a charr shaman is isn't among them (charr shamans are religious leaders in charr society - spread through all four legions, and since the founding of Titans was dominated by the Flame Legion). Similarly, given what we know this is likewise not such an issue. I could easily make a list of issues, but this isn't one. "how practical would it be for its veterans to keep changing their names each time they join a new warband?" Changing warbands is rare (stated in the quote from Ecology of the Charr above), though. So it's not that impractical since it rarely happens (and I would imagine that most times it does happen is because of involuntarily becoming a gladium - e.g., the sole survivor of a warband that was decimated). Your very argument for why changing warbands would happen is in fact stated to not be the case (I would imagine that most warbands reduced in number would be given assignments fitting their warbands' new size, as would gladiums not given new warbands). Remember: While the charr is a military-based society, they do have non-military based jobs required to be done. Konig/talk 11:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. He not just acts but is treated like one. Korrak was not just suspicious and hostile to his advice but even to his mere presence; hence, he wanted Rytlock to stay at the back. Sever and the others acceded to him but only grudgingly.
  2. I neither implied nor said that he joined Korrak's warband or that he left the Blood Legion in any official capacity. I just said that he worked for him in his "exile". As for "returning to the Blood Legion", he did just that within the aforementioned context according to EoD. What happened to Rytlock after D'sE fell apart? After being away from the Charr Legions for so long, he literally and explicitly returned to the Blood Legion and was demoted, later clawing his way to the top while looking back at his broken friendship with Logan bitterly.
  3. It's not that impractical or rare given how the player himself (we) undergoes it in the Charr starting area (of the 5 choices of sparring partner in your bio from members of your warband, only 2 survive: you and your best friend) and even encounters a gladium whom the Flame Legion try to recruit (they fail in their pitch by offering her a chance to only be their cook). Heck, later on, you even get flack from a superior officer for being one of the few survivor of your warband, who orders his underlings to attack you. That this happens to the player him or herself does make the reality of changing/reforming warbands because of attrition to be the case.
As for the the shaman caste, I never said that it was a discontinuity but an ill-defined term. It's in need of clarifications. It's ambiguous because we don't know how being a shaman works. Is the term applied to all (distrusted, disliked) charr magic-users? If yes, why make such a big fuss about my father being a shaman if I myself am one (by playing a scholar class or Guardian)? Or is it more delineated, being something like an organization that you join? If charr shamans are those who want religion and gods for the Charr, then shouldn't they all be outlaws, especially after Pyre Fierceshot and Kalla Scorchrazor's revolutions and reforms? But if they're all outlaws and enemies of the Charr people, shouldn't they be among the Flame Legion only? But if they're outlaws or found only among the Flame Legion, how can they be a possible choice for sire in your bio? What, the player's character's mother set aside all duty and loyalty to mate with a religious rebel/Flame Legionnaire? Or perhaps all legions have their share of shamans, distrusted as they are? But if so, how do they fit in and operate? Certainly, this is not self-contradictory like Charr second names, but the lack of clarity for what is actually an important part of Charr lore is something ANet's story team should look into. --Messenger 06:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Regardless of how he acts, is treated (remember that there's hostility between all legions, not just with Flame, and he is acting unusual), if he is not called a gladium, we cannot assume he is one. To assume is to speculate and that leads to incorrectness.
  2. I just pointed out how your words did - regardless of whether you wanted to. Even if he distanced himself from the charr legions, he was always a Blood Legion member, so he returned to Ascalon, but never left the Blood Legion.
  3. I never said it didn't happen (nor impractical), but that it was unusual. Just because it happens to the PC does not mean it is commonplace (in fact, I'd say what the PCs do is the complete opposite of commonplace).
  4. We know that not all charr magic users are shamans, just as not all shamans are casters (there is at least one warrior from the shaman caste in Eye of the North). It's not explicit but it is not ambiguous either - except for the information related to GW2 alone (which is what 90% of your questions on them are about), in which case everything is equally or more unknown.
Again, charr surnames are not contradictory. To go back to your original points on the surnames: "some warbands have members with completely different second names" You have yet to point out a case for this (your example of Korrak, Rytlock, and Sever is not a case of shared warband, as those being the only named members of the "commander corps" Korrak is centurion, Sever is Legionnaire (thus a different warband which is underneath Korrak) and Rytlock is of another legion). Konig/talk 12:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Except that we have a clear and simple working definition of gladium: a charr without a warband- and not because he was detached or sent away on a separate mission (in Rytlock's case, expelled or driven out). To cite the lack of explicit term use (a distinct possibility explained by Charr lore still being in development at the time of the writing of EoD) is worse; we're trying to avoid making a mistake by ignoring what's given and factual. It's like concluding from the sentence "Pope Benedict XVI resides in the Vatican" that Pope Benedict is not Catholic because it's not stated there.
  2. Yes, he kept his Blood Legion medallion all the time. Yes, he was still considered a member of Blood Legion, even if his own warband rejected him and he ended up running alongside members of another Legion. But regardless of all this, he's still a gladium by definition by virtue of being kicked out of his warband. And in the end, he still had to return physically and actively to the Blood Legion to which he had physically been away from and had not been directly working for since being booted out by his warband.
  3. You're missing my other cited example: one of the events taking place in the Charr starting region is encountering a gladium being recruited by the Goldies. That gladium is an NPC. Losing and rebuilding a warband isn't an uncommon thing that takes place only to give a player his storyline- it's a reality that charr have to face as per the costs and wages of war. Casualties and replacements are part of being in any army in an active warzone. In the Charr's case, their home is a warzone.
  4. You can't say that Charr shamans are not ambiguous but instead unknown. That's just playing semantics. It's like you saying an object to my right is not on my right but on the opposite side to my left. Both ambiguity and being unknown both point to lack of information and clarity, to which I'm driving at. While it's not a direct contradiction like the second name issue, it can lead to story discontinuity- particularly, if shamans are those advocating religion for the Charr, what are they doing among the Legions outside of Flame? If they're only among the Flame, how did dad meet up with mom when they should have been killing each other?
  5. Let's be clear: "However, some warbands have members with completely different second names, such as the one Rytlock was running in at the start of Edge of Destiny (Korrak Blacksnout, Sever Sootclaw)." The term "Rytlock" there is a specify which exact warband I'm talking about, not that Rytlock was part of it. The comparison I was citing is in parenthesis: "Korrak Blacksnout" and "Sever Sootclaw". Now that this has been clarified, even as a Centurion, there is no reason for a Centurion's warband not to accompany him and there is great reason for them to do so, especially as his leadership attendants. The warband is the most basic, central and core part of Charr culture, acting with the emotional and experiential family of each charr. Charr within a warband trust each other, fight alongside each other, and suffer together. Who better people to help you lead many other warbands than the very ones you grew up with and trust the most? In whose hands would you be willing to place your life as you did your duty of leadership? Conversely, if your relationship with your warband utterly sucks, then it's not surprising for them to give you the boot.
  6. We can simplify this debate in this manner: Either:
  • Korrak and Sever are in the same warband despite having different names. This is contradictory to the statement of changing your name to match your new joined warband, but maintains the bonds and effective cooperation between charr and warband by keeping them together despite differences in rank or because of assignment.
  • Either Korrak, as Centurion, is head of this warband while Sever is an outsider, thus maintaining the rule about second names but begging the question of what Sever is doing with a different warband and even staying with them for the entire duration of that part of EoD, or Korrak, as Centurion, is not part of Sever's warband but has been detached from his warband because of his rank, diminishing greatly the emphasis given to warbands in Charr culture. Similarly, it removes him from those who would help him lead best- his literally most trusted comrades. --Messenger 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

  1. There's a difference between being something, and acting as something (and Rytlock self-exiled). And I'm not saying he's definitely not a gladium, but that until we know more we cannot say that he is (to use your example: if that is all we knew of the pope, then you'd be right to a degree (that degree being that we cannot claim he is Catholic). However, we know more than that simple sentence).
  2. Again, he wasn't kicked out.
  3. I never said it didn't exist outside the PC's experience. I said that the PC - who by definition of being the player's character - will experience the unusual, so using the PCs' experiences as a basis is a folly.
  4. I said that what we know is not ambiguous (what we know is explicit). But there's a lot about modern shamans that is unknown (which causes ambiguity in the topic, rather than our knowledge). I worded things poorly, due to going back and rewriting most of what I wrote on the topic.
  5. Another case of poor wording on my part, but point being that Sever and Korrak did not share warbands - I included Rytlock to make sure there was no misunderstandings (of you or others) that he was or was not part of said warband (as previously I got indications that it was being implied that he shared warbands with them).
  6. Centurions control multiple warbands, Legionnaire (Sever's title) is the leader of a single warband. Therefore, there would be no Legionnaire within the Centurion's warband, therefore Sever has to be of a different warband. It does not mean he was detatched from his warband, because his warband could have been among those present (we also know of a third warband that Ferroc Torchtail was a part of under Korrak's command - said warband was at the end of the procession). Also, page 342 states that the landslide crushed the leaders - they led 300 charr (pg. 25), and a single warband is of 5-20, meaning Korrak led at least 15 warbands, so honestly, with the leaders all being in the command corps... do you expect them all to be of the same warband out of 15? Konig/talk 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. That's if we don't know the definition of the term "pope", as well as the identity of Benedict XVI and what the Vatican is. In this case, we do know the definition of the term "gladium". It would be silly (to say the least) to pretend that we didn't and operate as such.
  2. I already said it: Rytlock was being snarky. For argument's sake, let's say he was also factually correcting Korrak: that's still a gladium no matter how you cut it. If it's shameful to lose your warband in conflict, then it's worse to lose yours because they don't like you, and the height of arrogance, disobedience and untrustworthiness to leave yours behind.
  3. You cannot say that there's a lot of stuff about shamans that's "not ambiguous" and "explicit" and yet admit to a lot of it being unknown and causing ambiguity! Whether you can separate the parts we do know from the parts we don't know, ultimately we still have an incomplete picture that makes the concept very confusing and possibly self-contradictory when followed to their logical and practical conclusions.
(Will continue part 4, 5, 6 later- gotta go offline for awhile.) --Messenger 09:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Never said we didn't, never said we should. You ignored the more important part of my comment: acting like something is not the same as being something.
  2. I am fairly sure that Rytlock gave the same explanation to Logan later in the book.
  3. If you actually read what I said, everything about the shamans from GW1 and prior is explicit - in fact, make that from Kalla and earlier. Furthermore, I also said what we know is explicit and not ambiguous (meaning there's little questionables in what we know), unlike a lot of other things (such as the order of events regard the end of gw1:The Guild Wars). I never once said what we have is complete (in fact, from the beginning I've said that we have an incomplete picture of shamans during GW2 - like everything else in the freaking game).
You're starting to get annoying with how you're apparently not reading what I'm typing. Konig/talk 10:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. For someone saying "Never said we didn't, never said we should," you're doing just that by saying "acting like something is not the same as being something." This is especially given the suspicion and derisive treatment Rytlock got from Korrak and even Sever, or how Rytlock was demoted and made to do menial tasks at the end of the book. If he didn't have gladium status, whether de jure or de facto, regardless of whether his warband couldn't stand him or not (and especially if it was just because he couldn't stand them) then he wouldn't have gotten busted down the ranks after returning with such an impressive reputation as part of Destiny's Edge.
  2. And I say again, for argument's sake: "If it's shameful to lose your warband in conflict, then it's worse to lose yours because they don't like you, and the height of arrogance, disobedience and untrustworthiness to leave yours behind." Whether or not Rytlock was just being snarky or meanly honest, he's shamed by his fellows the way gladium are.
  3. Just because one part is explicit and clear does not make the entire concept not ambiguous. You yourself admit that it's an incomplete picture; it ultimately leads to confusion and discontinuity in its practical and working conclusion. That's what ambiguity or incomplete info does.
  4. Going back to the experience of becoming a gladium and having to join a new warband: It's simply not an unusual circumstance. It's the reality of war. Warfare means attrition, wounded and casualties. Units constantly get hurt, decimated or even wiped out. Look at any violent conflict in history. And where GW2 is fantasy, we have a military culture constantly in war whose (former) main enemies never die and also have to fight Centaur, Ogres and Grawl and now even terrifyingly ancient and powerful dragons. The idea that Charr warbands do so well as to make the phenomenon of gladium unusual illogically defies the reality of the setting. That it happens to the PC himself and is witnessed by the PC as happening to others is thus not folly but confirmation.
  5. This applies to #6 as well: As a culture intimately familiar with war, the Charr are not going to do the military version of putting all their eggs in one basket by bunching together warband leaders in one command corps. This is a world where AoE attacks are commonly used through magic and siege engines- and traps. This is what exactly happened at the start of the book. Furthermore, to separate leaders from the soldiers they command makes communications and orders exceedingly clumsy and difficult. The more realistic and practical organization is for leaders to stay with their squads and to communicate with the top brass through runners and signallers- just like they did in historical, real world militaries. Korrak's command corps was not made up of warband leaders ready to be wiped out in an ambush- it was his own warband working as his staff, the guys that he fought alongside with, rose through the ranks with, and trusts the most. And that Sever stayed by his side the whole time makes him a member of Korrak's command corps, not someone belonging to another warband.
  6. You read it wrongly. Page 28: the command corps- which you say were made up of the leaders of the warbands- actually survived. Page 342's "leaders" does not mean "commanders" but means "those in the front of the column"; "leaders" is contrasted with Ferroc Torchtail's position in the rear, which is why he survived the landslide traps.
And as for being annoying, that's rich from someone who argues by playing semantics. --Messenger 11:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
"And as for being annoying, that's rich from someone who argues by playing semantics." If I'm playing semantics, then you're even moreso. To your points:
  1. No, I'm not saying he isn't a gladium. I'm saying that we cannot say he is a gladium just because he's acting and being treated as one. Sure, semantics. Whatever. But fact remains fact - we do not know if he's a gladium or not, because all we know is that he is distanced from his warband (I'd also argue that it wouldn't be "his" warband if he was a gladium).
  2. I never disagreed with that. But being treated like something is, just as acting like something, not the same as being something. Fact: He is not called a gladium (to go back to your pope example, he is called a pope, we know popes are catholic, therefore he is catholic - Rytlock is not called a gladium, we know that gladiums are without warbands, therefore we do not know if he has a warband or not).
  3. Incomplete != Ambiguous. Ambiguous is unclear, whereas incomplete is not finished. There's a difference. The knowledge of the shaman caste is clear, but it is not complete.
  4. Becoming a gladium is highly likely to be common place (unless they get total annihilations of warbands often). Joining new warbands, however, we have been told is unusual. You are going against ArenaNet's own explicitly stated words - until Anet states otherwise, their word is the "word of god" and that means joining new warbands is uncommon.
  5. Edge of Destiny makes it sound like that was the case (or at least most leaders were). Remember that the top brass (Korrak) was set on the idea that there weren't threats for miles.
  6. I would typically see "the front" to contrast "the rear" but whatever, this wasn't the best written book so clarity is far from good here (such as whether or not Rytlock is a gladium).
As it is clear we won't get anywhere with this, I won't likely continue this. Especially since there seems to be some sort of communication error. Konig/talk 12:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait. Pause. Truce. Something more vital that should cleanly settle this matter without further acrimony.
As things seem to be going from vigorous and passionate debate to outright flame war, let's get back to the root of this entire discussion. As far as naming one's Charr toon is concerned, I said that "However, some warbands have members with completely different second names, such as the one Rytlock was running in at the start of Edge of Destiny (Korrak Blacksnout, Sever Sootclaw)." This is against what is written in the article of this talk page which was based on the article Ecology of the Charr. At which point, you (Konig) and I started digging up evidence and constructing arguments to back up our positions. But before that...
"Ecology of the Charr" was copied verbatim from an official ANet source. Can someone direct me to that official source? The page itself does not link or refer to the source it copied. I'm googling it now, and only this wiki's Ecology of the Charr article pops up mentioning the name change.
I thought it was Ree Soesbee's blog post, but there's no mention at all of changing one's name upon joining a new warband, although the dire situation of gladiums is mentioned there. I looked through the others as well- nothing.
At this point, without that source we have to consider that the statement of charr having to quickly change second names upon joining a new warband is either erroneous/false or has been removed and is no longer canon. --Messenger 12:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Ecology of the Charr comes from an old (from 2007) PCGamer magazine - it also contained The Movement of the World. It is, in fact, verbatim (I have the magazine myself - if I can get a confirmation that it is ok to photocopy the article, like we did with gw1:An Empire Divided, I would be happy to provide such if necessary). There is no online copy (PCGamer once had The Movement online, but has since taken it down).
Things should not be taken as fact as no longer canon due to being old (e.g., Rotscale being reanimated by Stone Summit to crush Ascalon) unless it is outright contradicted (and not just seemingly - e.g., Rotscale's origin never being mentioned post beta). Konig/talk 12:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
For the purposes of invalidation, you do realize how strange it is to announce the negation of a cultural law as if it never existed, as compared to Ree Soesbee simply not mentioning it in Legions of the Charr), especially after 5 years worth of development has passed? Also, at what point will you accept in-game text that indicates two charr with unrelated second names as direct contradiction to that rule and acceptable evidence in this matter? --Messenger 14:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, we have no indication that things have changed. Two charr that work together, one of which being a Centurion that was leading approx. 15 warbands, having two separate surnames is not very good support for the claim that charr surnames don't change when changing warbands. As for "which point" - I'll except it when it appears. In game or in books. Konig/talk 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Are Charr still fully carnivorous?[edit]

A Charr's Hidden Strawberry Garden --Messenger 06:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

They are carnivorous, but that doesn't mean they can't have hobbies, and they do need vegies for their cattle (though those strawberries look more like a hobby). 'Sides, it having to be kept a secret makes it as "odd" for charr. Konig/talk 12:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
She wants her secret kept because she doesn't want to have to share her strawberries with others (5:24). Considering her patch is located near the Black Citadel, she's thus referring to her fellow Charr. And if she's raising them just as a hobby and not because Charr actually eat strawberries, why would she be so concerned about raising them in secret so as not to share them? She could have raised them openly, in a far more accessible place, without fear of having to dole out strawberries to others. --Messenger 12:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also @ this; "that one seems more like it's something that charr wouldn't normally do" - if it's something out of the norm, you can bet that there will be teasing if found (or at the very least embarrassment). As to sharing: Well, there are cases of carnivors eating non-meat products (for instance, there are dogs which eat grass) - this is done for digestive purposes. And there are probably other reasons for having strawberries (flavoring comes to mind). Then there's also the mentality of a child ("if I like it, others will like it too" or just simply the id's selfishness). Konig/talk 02:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense; if growing and eating fruit is socially embarrassing for charr, why would others ask for a share? For that matter, Anya doesn't mention shame or act in fear of being shamed; rather, she's hoarding her strawberries precisely because she's afraid there won't be enough to go around. Nor is there evidence that the strawberries, if actually consumed by carnivorous charr, serve just as some sort of digestive aid or emetic; again, the demand Anya mentions for her strawberries is more along the lines of delicacy than medicine. More importantly: why hide it or why would it be embarrassing if it's just medicine? Lastly, even if she was acting with the mentality of a child, that would mean that charr can and would eat strawberries as the delicious treat that is- which would be beyond being strict carnivores the way the Charr are described. Yet on the other hand, if strawberries weren't actually a tasty thing to eat for the charr, why would Anya still go through all the trouble of growing them in such a hidden, out-of-reach place? Take note that Anya didn't just grow one plant or patch of strawberries but several of them. Lastly, dogs are actually omnivores since they can easily and healthily digest a wide variety of foods and don't have to rely on meat-based proteins. --Messenger 06:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) All I'll say about the worrying about sharing bit when they don't eat fruit or it's socially embarrassing is that you're thinking like an adult. This is a child's little patch of berries, so think like a child would. As I said: "Then there's also the mentality of a child ("if I like it, others will like it too" or just simply the id's selfishness)." "Nor is there evidence that the strawberries, if actually consumed by carnivorous charr, serve just as some sort of digestive aid or emetic" There'd no evidence to say there isn't. Lacking of evidence isn't evidence of lacking. This is very clearly going to turn out like the above discussion so I'll stop with this: We just don't freaking know. The whole situation is one big arse unknown. Charr are carnivores by nature, but as we can see in reality, sapient beings (especially as children) do stupid things that go against their bodies' nature (e.g., humans, while omnivores, have a digestive track which is designed to favor eating fruits and vegetables, however modern humans in 1st world countries have a diet primarily consisting of meat). Konig/talk 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of childish or adult thinking, just logical reasoning. Even where young children are not known for being rational, reason can still understand how a child thinks- and even work out how capable of logical thought they are.
Anya Fairchild is no young, small charr child. Child she definitely is based on her size, but she's also a child capable of
  • climbing up rocks and cliffs,
  • finding a particularly hidden spot near the Charr capital,
  • reliably and responsibly raising several strawberry patches, and
  • who even earned her warband-based second name
  • (which also means she did all that while attending to her farhar responsibilities).
That would require maturity and experience that would put her beyond the pure pettiness of going through the trouble of raising several strawberries in defiance of her natural diet and people's customs yet with the logical disconnect of fearing having to share them.
Even within the "if I like it, others will like it too" reasoning, you have to aks why she likes strawberries so much. There's actually nothing wrong with that logic, however "childish" you consider it. This would especially be true as far as she's capable of eating them and liking their taste; adults can do the same. More realistically, they already do, hence her not wanting to share for fear of not having any left over for herself.
As for things being unknown, let me remind you that you were the one who raised the idea. Your explanations are the unknowns to be verified. What's given and factual is a charr child who raises strawberries secretly who doesn't want to share them because of the high demand if discovered.
I find it funny that you're raising the idea of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. When we discussed the possibility of Charr no longer having to change their names to match their new warbands, the rebuttal you raised was that it's simply against lore, with you having to explain away how two charr with different last names in the same unit during a patrol or how Rytlock Brimstone managed to keep the same name all throughout his career. The difference between that and this is that is an example of something directly contradictory to established but old lore that is explicitly found in the game.
Honestly, your explanations are illogical and complicated excuses in order to avoid the possibility that the lore we have- based on old material that has since been updated- is outdated. The simplest and most likely explanation is that the Charr do eat strawberries (and potentially other fruit and vegetables) and are no longer the pure carnivores they were said to be in Ecology of the Charr. And here, from in-game- the primary source of GW2's lore- we have a direct example of such updated lore by ANet's story team. If even direct game content is not enough for you to accept that, nothing else will be. --Messenger 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time to read your full long post (which I wanted to avoid happening in the first place), so regarding your list: all that shows is that she has physical prowess (charr are known to be physically stronger than most races already), and had free time outside of the fahrar (we have no clue how much time being in a fahrar takes up of the day - it is compared to school, which is on average 8-9 hours, but considering this is charr, I'd imagine they'd spend more time with fahrar activities - nevertheless, all you'd need is a few hours of a day over the span of months to years to eventually find a hidden location, and start a small farm). None of what you listed "would require maturity and experience" - experience, maybe, but not maturity in the least.
"Even within the "if I like it, others will like it too" reasoning, you have to aks why she likes strawberries so much" Why do people have fetishes? Why are there sadists out there? Masochists? Misogynists? Nihilists? BDSM people? Why do people enjoy playing games, or writing poetry, or running marathons? Why do people like or dislike anything in particular? There are many reasons, and you cannot define them based on ethnicity (or in this case, race). They are unique unto the individual and are nigh impossible to explain without a very in depth research into their past - and all we know about this charr is that she's female, young, has a last name (note: we do not know when charr receive a last name), and that she likes strawberries and doesn't want to share with too many people. That is not enough to figure out why she enjoys strawberries - but we were told charr are carnivores, so to suddenly assume they aren't because of one individual is foolhardy.
And one last quick note. My argument above is actually the same as here: we have previous lore which has not been disqualified yet therefore we should not assume (even if there's one case - the one does not define the whole, after all) that the lore has changed. Konig/talk 18:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If the game was out and we had a bunch of named charr NPCs in the same warband but with different second names, you'd argue that they were still in the process of changing their names to account for them not matching, rather than accept that they can actually have different names in a warband and thus concede that the lore had indeed changed since 5 years ago. And when challenged, you'd then cite the idea of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
The issue of charr of having to have matching last names is no longer mentioned in the recent "The Legions of the Charr" lore presentation by Ree Soesbee. We now even have in-game footage of a charr raising strawberries with your explanation being nonsensical shame, nonsensical childishness, nonsensical whimsy and is now even compared to social or behavioral deviancy- all silly in the face of the direct, simple reason that the charr do eat strawberries.
Be reassured that the frustration you feel is by no means exclusive given how you've been reasoning things out. Good day, Konig. --Messenger 17:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wrong - the change is said to be immediate. The only exception to the rule I'd say being the case is the PC's warband, due to the game being a roleplaying one and in turn the nature of what a western RPG is. If one such case - even one - is found, I'll argue that the lore was retconned (unless there's something to show otherwise, that is). BTW, something not making it into a single lore blog post hardly means that it doesn't exist - those blog posts are pretty much just "basic info" - introductory things, like the official website's pages or the manual. They will not have all the details.
On the issue of strawberries (let's try not to derail too much): I never said it's impossible for them to eat strawberries. In fact, I said that some could for one reason or another (perhaps my example of dogs eating grass was too poor, since you took it for why dogs eat grass rather than the simple fact that dogs eat grass - and went on to say how they're omnivores because they do, when they are, in fact, carnivores based on their teeth). And a child acting childish is not nonsensical - fuck, being a child itself means you won't make any bloody sense half the time because they don't know shit and any good writer (and I'd argue that the GW2 team has, at the least, decent writers) will be capable of showing childishness in a child character. Konig/talk 18:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow... you two... Based on the existing lore and the fact that modern cats are carnivores, I would place the charr there too. That doesn't mean they can't eat and enjoy a sweet strawberry or other fruit, it just means they can't survive without essential nutrients found in meat. --Thervold 18:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, guys, remember there's no real "truth" to be uncovered - Anet can say and do whatever they want with the game, and some things might contradict other things. There are some Dredge that have a gong-banging ability, but no one is running around trying to find why the supposedly-sound-sensitive moles aren't affected and coming up with theories about their ear structure. It's a game, not real life. ArenaNet wanted a humorous little area with a ferocious charr tending a dainty strawberry garden. That's all. Thunderduck 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
All dredge technology is sound based - and that's probably because it's the easiest way for them to tell its working (while they aren't blind, they do have worse eyesight than other races). It always seemed rather obvious to me. Konig/talk 12:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
No, Konig. When I say "dogs are omnivores" I'm not just referring to grass. I'm talking about them eating actual food from plant sources (vegetables) both when fed (in the case of dogs with owners) and when left to their own devices (strays scavenging). To cite their teeth (and evolutionary path) like that is to overlook the domestication they underwent, the rapid changes it wrought on their form and biology, what they actually eat and what is recommended for their diet by veterinarians. When I said dog owners can get away with just feeding them vegetables to meet all their dietary needs, I wasn't kidding.
Does your "one reason or another" include eating food from plant sources purely because it is food? Whether it tastes sweet or is there to fill the belly and keep your strength up, that still means they're not the pure carnivore you keep insisting they are, especially where The Ecology of the Charr says "they do not feed on any sort of plants. They have no farms, and no need for agriculture or vegetation outside of what is needed for structures or technical uses." This is the strict adherence to old lore you've been preaching. --Messenger 04:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thunderduck, even where it approaches taking the game too seriously, any lore- even the ones made in lighthearted jest- have to be taken as fact if they happen in the game exactly because they happen in the game. --Messenger 04:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
They haven't been obligate carnivores for a long time. Beer and whiskey aren't made of meat, people. :P Arshay Duskbrow 11:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

New interview on charr lore[edit]

Tower Talks has a new interview with Scott McGough from ArenaNet on the charr. here --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Kenrid (talk).

Since Wartower hasn't provided an english transcript, ShadowedSin had made a bulletpoint notes of interest about the interview here (side note: not sure if it's available to non-guildies). Konig/talk 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I can view the link--Relyk 20:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

References to GW1[edit]

In the 'history' part of this article it is stated that the Burnt warband found the Titans. That would be Bonfaaz Burntfur and Hierophant Burntsoul, right? 09:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, a warband's name can be carried across generations. Those two wouldn't have been born yet when the titans were found. Konig/talk 15:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Character choices and personal story[edit]

According to the information on Personal storyline, the level 1-10 personal story is influenced solely by the legion you choose. From 11-20 it's influenced by your sire. Then we start with the Orders storyline, which will be the same for all Charr (at least, that's what I expect given how other races work).

Is there any difference in personal story when choosing Reeva or Dinky or any of the other members of the warband? Nkuvu 00:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For charr, the warband member you chose is an ally for the lvl 1-28 personal storyline. Konig/talk 01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
So an Iron Legion that chooses Reeva will have the same story as an Iron Legion that chooses Dinky? Good to know. The wording on the page makes it sound like the warband member does have an impact on where the story goes (and I'd rather not level another character up just to test that myself). I wonder if this is worth clarifying -- though if clarified here, it's also worth mentioning that the choice of gods for humans has no story significance. So maybe more trouble than it's worth. Nkuvu 02:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Only the actual lines from the warband member is changed. So it does affect story, but only so much - if not less - as the orders affect the racial sympathy (in which the only difference is the mentor who joins you and the lines with only a couple responses to said mentor). Konig/talk 03:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Retractable Claws[edit]

I don't know if I'm allowed to add to this but there seems to be some division in the community regarding the presence or absence of retractable claws in charr. Some believe the charr claws are too large to retract, and I saw it said that "Ghosts of Ascalon" includes a passage where retractable claws are made mention of. From the handbook "The Making of Guild Wars 2" that came with the Collector's Edition of the game, Character Artist Katy Hargrove is quoted as saying that, "I initially drew the females without their claws--they would retract when not in battle--to soften them up a little, but it didn't work out too well." (Page 51) This would lead me to believe that since "Ghosts of Ascalon" was written and published while the game was still being developed, Soulkeeper's retracting of her claws was an oversight as a result of the developers considering it during the game's creation. If memory serves, the charr had been far from finalized at that point in the production, and as no charr in the game has been seen to retract their claws, and in fact the claws are fairly large to fit in the rest of their fingers, it would seem to make sense its addition in the book was mistaken. I will, however, leave it up to the fine editors and members of this wiki to determine whether or not the information should be kept, I just wanted to share what I read. Oakster 01:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Things like this would be better suited on the official forums, specifically in the Lore subforum. For one thing, you'll have a larger audience. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 01:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


moved from Talk:List of charr ranks and titles

I agree on limiting this list to just naming the ranks. However, about merging it, Charr has a "Government" subsection within "Culture", where all ranks are already named and explained. Should we just add a subsection within "Government" itself (thus merging them) or keep them split? I prefer the first option, as I would find the second one quite redundant. Or, third option: keeping this as the clear and simple list it's supposed to be, with its respective links wherever they're needed (main page and each of the individual rank pages). Murethor (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this page is fine, it just needs to grow a bit more. Eventually, it could even become some kind of "list of charr characters" page, which obviously can't be included anywhere else.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Overfilling this page would turn it into something it's not intended to be: it exists to provide a simple guide to charr hierarchy, not as a list of charr NPCs. We'd need a different page for that (assuming it doesn't exist as of yet, or that including them within the general charr category is not enough). Murethor (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I went and moved the list over to Charr#Culture, having shifted around some of what was in the Government section (which is supposed to be just about the main leadership of the charr group - thus Imperators/Khan-Ur, and arguably Tribunes but no more) into the new section. If that's viable for Murethor, I think this article can be deleted as it is a bit too out of the way to be of real use, IMHO. Konig 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Just saw the edit to the main racial article (almost forgot about this!) and I agree on the deletion of this page. Murethor (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Charr vs Disney's Beast(Beauty and the Beast)[edit]

Anyone else notice that Charr are very very 90% similar to Beast from Beauty and the Beast? - Deathpunkin (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, like six years ago. It's not a direct reference, though - they both draw on similar source material. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)