Loesh.4697

so feeling are not masculine, man can't cry or express worrying about being afraid to loose your friends nooooo.. What a toxic comment. Just a point of view as valid as yours. I am sorry I understand something different than you, I suppose that is toxic. Uh, why exactly is your point as valid as their point exactly? you aren't entitled to an equal level of respect for holding a point of view that is frankly a poison to society merely by virtue of it being your point of view. "You should have feelings" "But your views aren't valid, and you aren't entitled to equal respect. " Holy kitten. There are views that are authentically harmful to people or groups in society. The belief that masculinity cannot be emotional is, indeed, toxic. Just because I believe that it's important that people are allowed to have feelings doesn't mean that all ideologies must be taken seriously. To be kind to all people inherently means being cruel to others. So... being kind to some people then. And non-uplifting behavior to others. Honestly the fact that no one tried to reason with them and instead went "you're not valid" is shocking to me. At least a little logic. All the great things can be reasoned with logic. To exclude dissent instead of teaching is... religious.To exclude dissent instead of reason is human, for good and for bad, attributing it to faith is historical revisionism at it's finest. To argue that all great things can be reasoned with logic is true, but to say that you can reason all great things with logic to everyone is naive. That said, you're ignoring the context: If I had simply said you are not valid as an opener to the conversation that would be one thing. But they asserted that the opinion was valid and I rejected it on the grounds that no, not all opinions are valid especially when they are actively damaging. If they wanted to continue the conversation from there then sure, but I deny the premise by which his point was based upon as I would not listen to someone if they based their opinion on say, phrenology, and indeed actively argue that person is a danger to society.

so feeling are not masculine, man can't cry or express worrying about being afraid to loose your friends nooooo.. What a toxic comment. Just a point of view as valid as yours. I am sorry I understand something different than you, I suppose that is toxic. Uh, why exactly is your point as valid as their point exactly? you aren't entitled to an equal level of respect for holding a point of view that is frankly a poison to society merely by virtue of it being your point of view. "You should have feelings" "But your views aren't valid, and you aren't entitled to equal respect. " Holy kitten. There are views that are authentically harmful to people or groups in society. The belief that masculinity cannot be emotional is, indeed, toxic. Just because I believe that it's important that people are allowed to have feelings doesn't mean that all ideologies must be taken seriously. To be kind to all people inherently means being cruel to others.

Every time Hypnowulf comments on Jormag my confidence that we won't be putting an axe through the dragons head by the end of the Icebrood Saga is shaken because they make such a bad case for it.

Ironically I like him for the opposite reason. In requiem he actually talks about his feelings and genuinely cares about his son, a sharp contrast to Bangars insane toxic masculinity to the point of stupidity.

I'm genuinely starting to worry Hypnowulf is losing his/her/their grip on reality.

I mean, we see some Svanir in Forged in Steel that are no different than any other Svanir. I don't think that Jormag is exercising absolute mind control over them to relax in hotsprings. We've also seen Jormag create constructs for the Svanir to hunt, too. Which is just basically making toys for her mortal kids to play with. I can't think of any good reason for Jormag to exercise compulsion over the Svanir to destroy their own ice constructs either. What I've seen is that those branded by Jormag just tend to really like their dragon and they're very appreciative of them. At this point, I'm of the opinion that Jormag's real power lies with absolute sincerity. This is something that Tom Abernathy has hiinted at in his frustration over how people believe Jormag's power is manipulation or mind control when it isn't, it's persuasion. Tom's also said that Jormag can't lie. I think that the way Jormag's power works is similar to an extremely logical, compelling argument founded in reason that you have to listen to. Then you can make your own decisions based on that. Jormag mentioned a while ago that their goal was to freeze the world to end the cycles. Their goal has been to end the cycles, period. Now they just see a different means to do so that doesn't involve having to freeze the world. Another thing that Tom has told us that's extremely relevant is that Jormag truly loves and cares about Tyria. I don't think that this dragon is going to be what many seem to expect them to be. I think you're taking Tom Abernathy's views on the subject and twisting them somewhat, I think you're half correct in the idea that Jormag is in some capacity not lying, and likely 'cares' for us and/or Tyria in some fashion. But what you completely overlook is how you can care for another person and still abuse them, wanting the best for people has never stopped any entity be they a government or an individual from harming those they 'care' for, sometimes going to the extreme of stripping them of all freedoms or even outright killing them for some perceived greater good. If Jormag truly understood what was best for the life of Tyrians it would object to the use of Sanguinary Blades to force people into becoming icebrood or using Boneskinner vials to mutate Kodan into flesh eating abominations obsessed with devouring their kin. Jormag has also been shown to take advantage of people at their worst, reaching into them in moments of despair and anguish before urging them to take their own life or the lives of others, dangling their hearts desires in front of them to give it power even at the expense of all life around them. It may internalize this as doing good and having some code of honor, but it's more akin to an abusive relationship then anything.

It's funny that you mention that they want to avoid religious themes for guardian, when the religious themes are part of why I like it so much as a class. Guardians can come from different walks of life, but the emphasis on holiness, purity, consecration, and judgement is everpresent along with people who refer to things like being a firebrand as a sacred duty, firebrand itself being a name that could refer to a religious zealot. In fact 'Dragon Hunter' was named expressly to evoke Witch Hunters according to Arena Net, with Dragons being Tyria's version of black magic for all intents and purposes as our ultimate evil and corruptive force.

Did Jormag kill her? No Bangar killed her.. > Jormag was manipulating Bangar.It boils down to, do you blame the sword or the person wielding it. Without Jormag influence Bangar wouldn't of killed her.Jormag may of been manipulating Bangar to do other things, but Almorra's death is squarely on his shoulders. There are no voices or atmospheric effects to indicate he was being influenced, nor did Ryland seem to be hindered by the voices despite being Ruinbringers opponent in that moment. Ruinbringers reasons for killing Almorra were deeply personal, and he shows little regret for her execution.

There is a difference between going to war and trying to sabotage and one up each other. There is no quest in game where you kill other legion members while being a part of a different legion. Flame legion were always outcasts within the Charr. Throughout the story we see all the three legions coming together and working together. We see this in the fire heart rise map where the 3 legions together to get rid of flame. Everything is racist in 2020. Please stop with this already. The Charr are not us. Please stop comparing them to us. We barely even see this in game. Where is the conflict you speak off? Which map do I have to go to get quests of this conflict? Yeah man, there is no in-lore reason for the charr to change..... except the entirety of Charr lore. Again you haven’t given me a single quest in game that support your arguement that the Charr needs to change. We have given you loads of quests, quotes, and support from lore sources such as the Ecology of the Charr as to why they have always needed to change in some capacity. You just don't want them to change because the Charr facing consequences for their actions disrupts the power fantasy of them being unstoppable badasses. But that was never true, and I predicted much of this would happen two years ago, becoming certain of it with the introduction of the Olmakhan and Bug in the System. Your only proof to the contrary is, what? they own a lot of land? Yeah sorry to break it to you, that's mainly because the other races have been hit harder by the Elder Dragons and their own natural disasters, the world became a much different place when the Crystal Dragon recently awoke and finally exacerbated their own internal problems to the point they signed the Ebonhawke treaty and gave up any land south of Twin Sisters Crossing. And no, the Charr have always been us, they have always been based on Roman and Mongolian culture, the Devs built the entire race that way and have even said as much themselves, anyone who skimmed a history textbook could tell you that. Even if they weren't, it's a pretty weak argument to say something cannot be racist because it's not from earth, racism as a concept would still exist on any alien world, it might just have a different name at best. Welcome to Sylvari in HoT or humans in PoF, when Anet focuses on your faction they show all the good and the bad, and the Charr have always had a lot of bad to sort through. Name a single quest that shows infighting between the primary legions of iron, blood and ash. The devs might have used the Romans and the mongols as inspiration, but they made the Charr distinct by giving them an identity and a history that differs from the Romans and the Mongolian civ. To my understanding the game prior to this saga has never shown or mentioned that charr society is doomed to fail. On the contrary, the charr are highly successful. You can make as many assumptions of what the story might say, but I want real examples of quests that back your claim. If what you say is indeed true, that there is infighting among the charr and that their society is on the verge of collapse, where so we see these events in game? Btw it’s not just the Romans or the mongols that fell. Every civ and empire had their highs and lows. No empire rules forever. So the analogy that the charr should change just to preserve themselves is ludicrous when every other civ suffered the same fate. You're being overly reductive on that last point, it's not just that the Roman and Mongolian empire fell. By many metrics they were for a time quite successful as far as civilizations went in terms of military power and territory, but that they collapsed in such a violent way that they effectively dissolved as we knew them at the time. Some nations carry on elements of them in spirit, and the origin of the Mongol empire still exists, but the resulting meltdown essentially caused them to cease being a real political power in the world where smaller nations have continued to exist in more peaceful and stable ways that have given them more permanence. Vietnam, just as an example, has existed for thousands of years and weathered many invasions and occupations, but the core of Vietnamese culture has largely remained intact without suffering the same culture wrecking internal collapse that in the modern era would greatly weaken their power on the global stage. By contrast when we talk about Rome or Mongolia it's rarely in terms of their present power and influence so much as it is a historical lesson, we dissect them for their successes and critically their mistakes more then anything else. As for examples in questing: The wariness and hostility towards Bangar Ruinbringer as well as vice versa is not new, Flame Centurion Kagaar saw that the alliance between Blood and Iron was already tenuous and began running operations for the Flame Legion in order to weaken their alliance. He knew, much as the renegades did with Minister Duran at the Fields of Ruin, that Legion agreements were essentially a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. By breaking irons siege weapon and framing blood he hoped to force the Blood and Iron forces into a conflict that would essentially distract them while the Flame mopped up the other Legions. As he says : "Just a nudge to start Iron and Blood fighting, then we sweep in to pick the bones clean." this is to say nothing of the fact that Ash also distrusts the Legions enough that it's seeding agents across them and having them pose as legit soldiers and officers to maintain Malices spy network in the early personal story which also involved them not sharing information with the other legions in order to do their own ops. It's established pretty early on that the Legions do not trust, or like even, each other that much as a result and so it's not terribly surprising to learn Ruinbringers turned guns on the Black Citadel in the past. To be honest i'm not sure why anyone is shocked by this. In Charr society it's legal to kill your own Legionnaires for a promotion, if they don't get along with themselves how do they get along with each other? In Steeleye Span the Charr leadership is so dysfunctional that Vortari the Despoiler leads hundreds of Charr to their deaths to make zero progress against the brand before a Tribune comes down from the Citadel to kill him personally for incompetence. Nevermind that the fact the Legions have been stretched thin has been present since the earliest portions of the core game. In Ebonhawke Ascalonians are saying they should advance, not negotiate, because the Legions are on the ropes and they can't take much more pressure. Vanguard Morrison observes that all the Fields of Ruin soldiers are being picked up and moved north to the Flame Citadel to fight Baelfires rising army. People in the Gladiums Canton comment that their section of the city is poor and dilapidated mainly because the strained iron Legion forces have to deal with the Flame and there aren't many Adamant Guard to maintain the city internally, and even after Baelfires death in Season 1 many of the Charr refugees of the Molton Alliance are turned away from the Black Citadel because they cannot take care of their people, forcing them to take shelter in places like Cragstead. If you look at sheer volume of land the Charr 'own' then yes they are successful. But if you look at how that land is managed and what is happening to the general population they are a dumpsterfire.

There is a difference between going to war and trying to sabotage and one up each other. There is no quest in game where you kill other legion members while being a part of a different legion. Flame legion were always outcasts within the Charr. Throughout the story we see all the three legions coming together and working together. We see this in the fire heart rise map where the 3 legions together to get rid of flame. Everything is racist in 2020. Please stop with this already. The Charr are not us. Please stop comparing them to us. We barely even see this in game. Where is the conflict you speak off? Which map do I have to go to get quests of this conflict? Yeah man, there is no in-lore reason for the charr to change..... except the entirety of Charr lore. Again you haven’t given me a single quest in game that support your arguement that the Charr needs to change. We have given you loads of quests, quotes, and support from lore sources such as the Ecology of the Charr as to why they have always needed to change in some capacity. You just don't want them to change because the Charr facing consequences for their actions disrupts the power fantasy of them being unstoppable badasses. But that was never true, and I predicted much of this would happen two years ago, becoming certain of it with the introduction of the Olmakhan and Bug in the System. Your only proof to the contrary is, what? they own a lot of land? Yeah sorry to break it to you, that's mainly because the other races have been hit harder by the Elder Dragons and their own natural disasters, the world became a much different place when the Crystal Dragon recently awoke and finally exacerbated their own internal problems to the point they signed the Ebonhawke treaty and gave up any land south of Twin Sisters Crossing. And no, the Charr have always been us, they have always been based on Roman and Mongolian culture, the Devs built the entire race that way and have even said as much themselves, anyone who skimmed a history textbook could tell you that. Even if they weren't, it's a pretty weak argument to say something cannot be racist because it's not from earth, racism as a concept would still exist on any alien world, it might just have a different name at best. Welcome to Sylvari in HoT or humans in PoF, when Anet focuses on your faction they show all the good and the bad, and the Charr have always had a lot of bad to sort through.

Not to mention, even a society driven largely by war like the Charr would still need people from all walks of life in order to support that life style. They would still need farmer to grow food, people in mills to process said food, engineers to design new things to build, medics to patch the wounded, teachers to teach the new generation, miners to dig up raw minerals, people working in smithies to process said materials, etc. etc. Which in turns means they would have a wide range of perspectives on various issues from all of these walks of life, and, in turn, would have large amount of internal disagreement over if the Charr society is the way it should be. Leading to..... exactly what we are seeing now with various Charr going "hmm... maybe this society of war and death kind of sucks". As you mention yourself, humans are not totally uniform after thousands of years.... likewise, the Charr wouldn't, and literally couldn't, be a totally uniform peoples either, so this idea where the Charr should never change, never question their warlike attitudes, never have any seconds thoughts, and never want to change themselves for the better, doesn't even make sense within the context of fiction. I can't even do this anymore. Let us stick to Tyria and what we know of it. The Charr are very advanced technologically. They have tanks, helicopters, turrets. Only the Asura are as technologically as competent as the Charr. So if the Charr was to go to war with the other races, chances are they will win. They are much better equipped for war and trained for war than the other races. Second, we do not see any infighting between the four legions. They always seem to work together and function as a part of Charr society. The Charr do have farmers, miners, engineers. We see them while questing in Ascalon. In fact the engineering profession in game is learned from the Charr. The game tells us so far that the Charr have been a successful race. These are not a race living in mud huts like the Orcs in WoW. This is a race that I think holds the most territory. They have been nothing but successful. Why would they need to change when their formula has worked so far? Unlike the humans, the Charr have been bred for war from a very young age. They know no other way of life to "change". Please stop comparing Tyria with the real world. Tyria has its own history and lore. Stick to the lore of the game! All the arguments supporting the change to the Charr are only drawing parallels between the real world. None of them ever even refer to the lore in game. The history of the Charr in Tyria define them. There is nothing in their history that mandates any change to their way of life. Also while i'm here: The Charr are technologically advanced, aside from Flame Legion they are pretty bad at magic, and even Flame Legions main power source is...flame. Which is why the Charr lost so many battles even after the Gods exodus, they couldn't say, conjure a legion of zombies like Nola Shepherd to eat their enemies alive. Hence why the assumption the Charr will win every fight with other races is actually quite flawed. They are only advanced in one type of warfare and historically disintegrate when faced with another.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and severely lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them. Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists by default and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that? Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized. You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up. The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race. I didn't say no one would want to play as such a race, to the contrary! I actually know a handful of people who do want to play that kind of race...specifically as a way to live out a power fantasy where they can freely maim other people and in a few cases, justify making an ethnostate. Make of that what you will. What i'm saying is if you're playing an antagonist, well you're going to face consequences. Which the Charr are, their society is completely unraveling because to be perfectly candid it's been built on a foundation of garbage for centuries, and no there's a progressive movement inside that group that are seeing them literally self destruct as is the inevitable end point that society and going 'Oh yeah, this is kind of bad.' You call it humanization, I call it having common sense. Nevermind the fact that I think the very notion that the Charr weren't attached to humanity in the real world already as silly in and of itself. They're a mashup of the Roman Empire and Mongolia down to the naming conventions, and experiencing a similar shift in their culture as to those two groups. How anyone can look at World of Warcraft Orcs, a race that literally came from a different dimension after dealing with demons and having a 200 year era of peaceful shamantic culture( and even before that, were in fact portions of a much greater elemental entity designed to defeat Dreanors Overgrowth.) and think they are more human then that is beyond me. There are many differences between the Roman Empire and the Mongols. The Roman Empire had an army but they were also the cultural and the trading hub of Europe at that time. Unlike the Mongols, the Roman society also placed importance on art, culture, engineering, etc. The Huns and the Mongols are much more similar being nomadic warring tribes. Looking at the Charr, they are a very advanced scientifically and not exactly nomadic even though their culture is militaristic. Even going by our history, this combination makes the Charr OP and highly unlikely to fall. Borrowing from our history, the Romans did not bring upon their own downfall. There are various reasons why the western Roman Empire fell which I am not going to get into. While I am nor familiar with the history of the Mongol Empire, I do know that the Huns could not conquer Rome and were driven back by a much stronger military civ. Stronger civs have always beaten the weaker ones. This cycle continued until the end of WW2 when Europe was devastated by war and had to give up their colonies in Asia and Africa. So your notion that the Charr will destroy themselves is not true because we have not even seen anything like that happening in our history. Well one: Mashup, like I said, prehistory Charr are the Mongolian Empire, hence the Khan Ur. Most of those themes have given way to more Roman ones, but elements remain. Second: I point you to the Year of Four, Five, and Six Emperors as well as the kerfuffle of Julius Caeser becoming Emperor and the ensuing civil war of his death, killing many valuable Romans like Cato the Younger in the process. The Roman Empire did collapse due to many things, but their implosion on a government level was definitely a contributor, the corruption of the Praetorian Guard and the squabbling of an increasingly incompetent(And sometimes just plain insane.) set of Emperors was trying the Empire to degrade from the top down. This is another one of those Mongolian parallels as well, as when the Khan of Mongolia died the infighting between his children and potential leaders caused them collapse from the inside out. To put it simply: You have to go into why the Roman Empire began to degrade or you're oversimplifying. The Charr have a much stronger hierarchy of power than the Roman Empire ever did. The Charr also are very different from the Romans. Their entire society is build to respect the Khan-ur. Stop trying to compare the Romans with the Charr. They are barely anything alike. Furthermore, the four Charr legions have not shown to be fighting for territory and we have not seen any infighting between them. So from the lore so far, we cannot say that the Charr will destroy themselves when they seem to be perfectly fine. Their pursuit for strength have suited them. They are one of the stronger races in the lore. But all of a sudden in this saga we are told that the Charr society is on a path to destroy themselves? Again I do not know why people are drawing parallels between Star trek, the Romans, the Mongols, when the Charr have their own lore and history. That's actually incorrect. The Charr empire began to implode for around 800 years after the Khan Urs death. This is why there's so few historical records that predate the Flame Legion beyond their tributary records, the Khan Ur's death triggered something similar to the crisis of the third century where competing generals(Which in this case, much like Genghis Khan were made up of his blood relatives.) began to kill one another to secure the throne. Up to and including the point where there armies would violently clash, which lead to a thousand year losing streak where humanity pushed them to the edge of what is now the modern Blood Legion Homelands. That only stopped with Abaddon, when the Flame Legion deceived or convinced the various city states with the power they now wielded from the volcano of Hrangmar, namely the Titans. They chained their women, killed political dissidents, and conjured the Searing when it became abundantly clear they were still going to lose even with their unity and the humans engrossed in their own civil wars. Consequently i'v never actually viewed the Charr as an indomitable military force, both before and after the Searing they lost battles to humans who were better at defensive warfare and access to a large amount of magic. Eventually humanity killed the titans and instigated a civil war by releasing Pyre Fierceshot(The Charr who is the basis for their modern society.) from captivity. While humans wound up losing Rin, they gained territory in southern Ascalon, which when combined with the Charrs new fear of magic due to the foefire meant they had an advantage over the Legions again. Infighting continued between Imperators but most were focused on the Flame Legion who were as powerful as the other three together, eventually they abandoned Ebonhawke and by the modern day they surrendered all the land south of Twin Sisters crossing. No more Flame Legion challenging them,, no more Kralk, means of course they would go back to targeting humanity and each other. It isn't something we're just 'told', it has a thousand years of precedent!

Considerably less insane when you remember that the reason the Foefire happened was because the Charr pledged themselves to a demon god that was threatening to drive the world into an endless pit of pain and torment, including giving those who fought against and FOR Abaddon a fate even worse then death by condemning them to the Realm of Torment lest they corrupt our reality, just ask Emberspire. Until the humans killed Abaddon and undid the corruption and allowed the souls to go free, of course. That wouldn't happen if the Pantheon of Human Gods and their merry worshipers never set foot on Tyria. Bottom line - Every atrocity the Charr have done, the humans did worse or at fault.Yeah no, while humans did participate in mass killings of individual races at certain points: See Palawa Joko and the Centaurs, mass killings were never institutionalized on the scale of the Charr where mass killings were common and accepted practice. Even during the Tengu Wars some humans reached out despite the fact that the Tengu themselves were responsible for a fair bit of the racism of that conflict and had performed their own horrific acts. The Charr have only recently been strongarmed into peace with other Tyrian races. Abaddon was rejected by humanity early on, the Legions embraced him because all they cared about was power and, how did you put it? the fear of losing. So they clapped their women chains, began ritually sacrificing people en mass, and nearly destroyed Tyria. Just because Abaddon would not be there if the Gods never came to Tyria doesn't mean you can pass the buck for the Legions choices on to humanity. That's not how responsibility works.

Considerably less insane when you remember that the reason the Foefire happened was because the Charr pledged themselves to a demon god that was threatening to drive the world into an endless pit of pain and torment, including giving those who fought against and FOR Abaddon a fate even worse then death by condemning them to the Realm of Torment lest they corrupt our reality, just ask Emberspire. Until the humans killed Abaddon and undid the corruption and allowed the souls to go free, of course.

The number of societies that would allow a species whose entire existence was devoted only to war survive next to them can be counted on one hand, and for good reason: To do so comes off as both stupid and severely lacking self preservation, and no matter the scenario the group that is made for nothing but killing is generally treated as horrible monsters rather then people because they literally cannot be redeemed. They are hardcoded to kill, and whether the perspective is alien or human that means they are always a threat to the existence of everyone around them. Putting aside the...troublesome...baggage of making a race who is literally biologically/culturally made to kill other people, which seems like and of itself the basis for a racist and/or Colonialist narrative on other people, it also fundamentally makes the race less interesting because they simply cannot have anymore complex thoughts other then to maim and murder while making the other groups around them either altruistic to the point of stupidity or just stupid period.The logical conclusion to that kind of society is they are ultra-fascists by default and will go out to conquer the rest of the world at some point, why would you ally with that? Like I mentioned earlier, you are more interested in the social issues of our world than the lore of Tyria. In your comment you mention racist, colonialist, etc etc. In tyria, a race can be racist and colonialist because Tyria is not planet earth. Why is everyone looking at the Charr as humans? The Charr are not humans! At least having a race who’s prime focus is war is better than having all the races being humanized. You say no one would want to play as a race whose focus is domination and you are wrong. I remember playing fable long time and along with many other ppl, we made an evil character. There are so many games where you can play as the antagonist and people play them. There was also a game called black and white 2 where you as a god could enslave ppl to build your civilization up. The point I’m making is you need not have an acceptable narrative in games. Tyria has 5 races, each different from the rest. A player interested in military conflict must have an option to pick a race that focuses on that just as a player has the option to play as the human race. I didn't say no one would want to play as such a race, to the contrary! I actually know a handful of people who do want to play that kind of race...specifically as a way to live out a power fantasy where they can freely maim other people and in a few cases, justify making an ethnostate. Make of that what you will. What i'm saying is if you're playing an antagonist, well you're going to face consequences. Which the Charr are, their society is completely unraveling because to be perfectly candid it's been built on a foundation of garbage for centuries, and no there's a progressive movement inside that group that are seeing them literally self destruct as is the inevitable end point that society and going 'Oh yeah, this is kind of bad.' You call it humanization, I call it having common sense. Nevermind the fact that I think the very notion that the Charr weren't attached to humanity in the real world already as silly in and of itself. They're a mashup of the Roman Empire and Mongolia down to the naming conventions, and experiencing a similar shift in their culture as to those two groups. How anyone can look at World of Warcraft Orcs, a race that literally came from a different dimension after dealing with demons and having a 200 year era of peaceful shamantic culture( and even before that, were in fact portions of a much greater elemental entity designed to defeat Dreanors Overgrowth.) and think they are more human then that is beyond me. There are many differences between the Roman Empire and the Mongols. The Roman Empire had an army but they were also the cultural and the trading hub of Europe at that time. Unlike the Mongols, the Roman society also placed importance on art, culture, engineering, etc. The Huns and the Mongols are much more similar being nomadic warring tribes. Looking at the Charr, they are a very advanced scientifically and not exactly nomadic even though their culture is militaristic. Even going by our history, this combination makes the Charr OP and highly unlikely to fall. Borrowing from our history, the Romans did not bring upon their own downfall. There are various reasons why the western Roman Empire fell which I am not going to get into. While I am nor familiar with the history of the Mongol Empire, I do know that the Huns could not conquer Rome and were driven back by a much stronger military civ. Stronger civs have always beaten the weaker ones. This cycle continued until the end of WW2 when Europe was devastated by war and had to give up their colonies in Asia and Africa. So your notion that the Charr will destroy themselves is not true because we have not even seen anything like that happening in our history. Well one: Mashup, like I said, prehistory Charr are the Mongolian Empire, hence the Khan Ur. Most of those themes have given way to more Roman ones, but elements remain. Second: I point you to the Year of Four, Five, and Six Emperors as well as the kerfuffle of Julius Caeser becoming Emperor and the ensuing civil war of his death, killing many valuable Romans like Cato the Younger in the process. The Roman Empire did collapse due to many things, but their implosion on a government level was definitely a contributor, the corruption of the Praetorian Guard and the squabbling of an increasingly incompetent(And sometimes just plain insane.) set of Emperors was causing the Empire to degrade from the top down. This is another one of those Mongolian parallels as well, as when the Khan of Mongolia died the infighting between his children and potential leaders caused them collapse from the inside out. To put it simply: You have to go into why the Roman Empire began to degrade or you're oversimplifying.