From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Possible Update Needed[edit]

I believe this could be updated to show that the charr version of the Foefire was corroborated by the ghost of King Adelbern's servant Savione during the retrieval of the Claw of the Khan-Ur from the ruins of Ascalon City. (from 'Ghosts of Ascalon') - Terryn Deathward 21:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It does... "The humans claim that it was caused when King Adelbern's Magdaer, who was the last standing human (the rest slain by the charr), clashed with the imperator of the Flame Legion who wielded the Claw of the Khan-Ur during the battle. The charr, on the other hand, claim that the king went mad in the final days that the charr surrounded Ascalon City. When the king's soldiers fled the battlefield through holes made in the walls by the sieges, Adelbern struck the ground with his sword bringing a pillar of light along with a giant flaming sword and caused the Foefire." - tells both versions of the story. -- Konig/talk 22:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not what Terryn is talking about. The article is flawed in that it mentions both points of view as if both had the same value, while we are told in the book that one is right, and the other is less so (or, as Terryn said, "charr version of the Foefire was corroborated"). We should edit the article in order to explain about that and mention Savione (and, this discussion could use a spoiler tag). Erasculio 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the article per the information on Ghosts of Ascalon and added a spoiler tag on the bit directly linked to the GoA storyline. Erasculio 01:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We can't say all of the charr's version is accurate. It's accurate in that the king went mad, and it's accurate in the case of the servant - but what else is? Was the retreat of the people accurate? I don't recall Savione supporting that.
Also, I highly dislike how you wrote it - you wrote it so that the information we learn later is put in first, then the information we learn first you put at the end. Then you just go say "the first is right" via the spoiler after saying the "right" account first. You made a redundant section - it would be better to state the human version right (as it is what we learn first) then state the charr version and then say parts of the charr version are confirmed to be accurate by Savione. -- Konig/talk 12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a good start for a Sunday morning, having to debate word by word from the book with my greatest friend.
"We can't say all of the charr's version is accurate": the charr version is the only one which could possibly be accurate, considering how (as stated in the article) the only surviving witnesses were the charr.
"but what else is?": the place where the king ignited the Foefire, how the king did not trigger it when clashing his weapon with the charr imperator, etc, etc...
"you wrote it so that the information we learn later is put in first, then the information we learn first you put at the end": out of curiosity, how is relevant to this article the order in which the information here is described in Ghosts of Ascalon? Or are you telling me that we should change the order here to place warriors above rangers, because, you know, warriors were announced first?
(Oh noes, look, quotes! I'm sure people's frail eyes are burning! Oh, the horror!) Erasculio 12:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You're the only one debating word by word, btw. Yes, the charr version is more accurate, but you make it out to be as if it is completely accurate. That's speculation. How do we know those quotes are true? How could the charr have heard it? Wouldn't the charr alter the story to make it as if their might was better (the retreating of the soldiers)? The charr version is more accurate, yes, but is it 100% accurate? You state it is, but yet it isn't 100% accurate. As to the order - to state "this is what happened" then "this is what others believe" then "the first is what happened" is redundant and could be better written in a format of "this is what humans believe" and "this is what charr believe" then stating "this much is true."-- Konig/talk 13:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"but yet it isn't 100% accurate": source? As in, do you have any source that the charr version is not accurate, or is that just speculation?
"As to the order - to state "this is what happened" then "this is what others believe" then "the first is what happened"": no, it's to state "this is what happened", then "this is what others believe", then a spoiler about the article. Beginning the article by stating what we know is wrong (since I hope you have noticed by now that the human interpretation is factually wrong) doesn't make any sense.
Somewhat ironically, if you were slightly more reasonable and less worried only about imposing your opinion, there is a very easy way to solve your complain about the lack of accuracy. Since the only part of the charr story not directly stated by either Savione or Keane is the retreat of human soldiers, it would be very easy to change the article from "many of the remaining human soldiers tried to flee the battle" to "the human soldiers failed to stop the charr advance". It would keep the meaning of the paragraph and actually be a compromise (know that word?) between your point of view and mine. Erasculio 14:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My source is the lack of confirmation. Thus, it is speculation to say it is 100% accurate. That compromise (yes, I know the word - please stop insulting me) would be reasonable, but it is still insulting to say I was worried only about imposing my opinion as I am not. But either way: I still find that the charr on the "Viewing Hill" could hear the very words of the king inside the city, so while that part is not documented, I highly doubt that it is 100% accurate. And you have nothing to say it is 100% accurate, tyvm. -- Konig/talk 15:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"That compromise (yes, I know the word - please stop insulting me) would be reasonable": right, so...
"I highly doubt that it is 100% accurate": what are you complaining about now? If we have found a way to change the article so your not "100% accurate" passage is removed, are you complaining about some other section? Or are you just complaining despite having found a suitable compromise, just to, you know, impose your opinion? Erasculio 15:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I find the term "complaining" very... demeaning. I was merely stating how more than the account of the soldiers is off. That compromise is for said account, the words is a different account which I brought up to clarify on how it is unlikely that the charr is 100% accurate. For you see, there is still an inaccuracy via "His ghost reiterated Fireburn's version of the Foefire to Dougal Keane before being set free" because, well, he didn't. Not fully. He confirmed the time before the invasion itself and that Adelbern caused the Foefire of his free will, but he didn't confirm the words used or the soldiers retreating. Edit: I'll change said line to "reiterated parts of Fireburn's version" - that should be a fair enough compromise. -- Konig/talk 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've noticed other possible assumptions that you made, Era, while reading though this: "It was through the Fireshadows that an accurate description of the Foefire reached the living" and "however the charr leader never did battle King Adelbern directly" particularly. Also, we cannot say that no human witness survived, though it does seem to be the case - there may have been survivors that weren't in Ebonhawke, but this all depends on how the Foefire managed to affect all of Ascalon except Ebonhawke (or so portions of the book say). -- Konig/talk 16:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To address your other complain (about the redundancy in the order of the paragraphs), I think we could simply remove the pragraph currently marked as a spoiler. It doesn't really add much (Savione's story would be more suited to his own article), we would have one less spoiler tag, and we would remove the "this haopened, they thought that but the first thing is what actually happened" structure you mentioned above.
The book also describes how the king stood at his tower when the charr invaded, and that the flame imperator was at the city's main plaza when the Foefire happened, so the two of them have not really met. The lack of human survivors is mentioned when the book presents the ghost farmers, explaining that everyone leagues around the city was turned to ghosts, not only those within the walls. Those in Ebowhank survived, but no one inside Ascalon City could have survived to tell the others the details of what happened (as far as humans go). Erasculio 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll be having to reread the book (I read it fast so I don't recall everything), but I find it... unlikely that the only human survivors in Ascalon were those in Ebonhawke... It just seems, extremely unlikely. There had to be something that deemed which humans turned to ghosts and which did not, and Ebonhawke doesn't appear to be that far from Ascalon City by the book's map in order to have it so that every human in Ascalon (sometimes they said "in all of Ascalon" while at other times it was "for leagues around Ascalon City" if I recall) but those in Ebonhawke turned to ghosts. If there were no human survivors, how'd the humans even know that Adelbern was at the epicenter of the Foefire? How did they know of the siege on Ascalon City or that the charr ever broke into the city? -- Konig/talk 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the book in my hands right now, but around page 290 they mention how the area affected was "leagues" around the city, not the entire country of Ascalon (and those leagues apparently were not enought to reach Ebowhank; do we know how close to each other they are?). How humans learned about it... No idea. I would guess Sabione's messages and rumors from the charr (plus of course the bright light in the sky), but I wouldn't mention that on the article as it!s just speculation. Erasculio 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What if we state that "there's no records of a human who witnessed the event to have survived" or something of the like - to be safe, as that is neither speculation nor contradicting the book while allowing room for ... aaaaand brain fart - can't recall the word I'm looking for. Hate when that happens... -- Konig/talk 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure. There's probably a way to say it in less words, but that works too. Erasculio 17:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


What is it with people destroying everything? We got the searing, the cataclysm, Shiro's wail, Abaddon's creepy crawlies and now this?--Emmisary 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Humanity has always been pretty self destructive. I guess Tyrians are no exception. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Tyria's a shithole. ;) -- Konig/talk 22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
See, with special reference to the "Crapsack World," "Fantastic Racism," and "Nice Job Breaking It" entries. Zolann The IrreverentUser Zolann The Irreverent Mysterious Summoning Stone.png 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just tell me what is WAS[edit]

I'm not here for bad fanfiction. Just the facts, please.