Question about charr physic.

[derd.6413]

> @"Zyph.8401" said:

> > @"Biziut.3594" said:

> > (NO I AM NOT A FURRY OR ANYTHING >.< )

>

> Dude just own it it's 2018 no one cares anymore

>

 

as long as he keeps it family friendly

[MisterCheshire.4029]

But no, propaganda typically will incorporate the aspects of creatures that society dislikes (Snake togues, features of ugliness, Devil horns, Etc). If you look at WWII or WWI Propaganda, you can see they making other people look at monsterous as possible. Nowadays, due to anti-racist sentiments, we see significantly less of this. However, no, Charr's do not have super sized tongues.

 

That being said, they do probably have cat sized tongues, which are larger than human tongues, see tigers or cats cleaning themselves off.

[norbes.3620]

So ur saying that charr can lick their.. clean like cats do?

 

im starting to understand why some People are so occupied in their "love for charr"..

[Castigator.3470]

> @"norbes.3620" said:

> So ur saying that charr can lick their.. clean like cats do?

>

> im starting to understand why some People are so occupied in their "love for charr"..

 

Well, sure. They can clean their fur using their tongue, but the price to pay for that utility is occasionally coughing up hairballs. In fact, I think the

of the charr player character have something along the lines of "I've coughed up things nastier than you.". These were taken from the belcher's bluff minigame, if I recall correctly.

[SnowHawk.3615]

Separatists are basically racists posting propaganda about Charr since they still hold a grudge that their ancestors dealt even though the treaty doesn't affect them negatively.

 

[Rognik.2579]

> @"SnowHawk.3615" said:

> Separatists are basically racists posting propaganda about Charr since they still hold a grudge that their ancestors dealt even though the treaty doesn't affect them negatively.

But it does affect them. It means their race has given up on getting back the land they once owned by the right of the Six. They are the descendants of those who fought for generations against the charr, and now the Queen is just going to let them keep it? Unacceptable!

[SnowHawk.3615]

> @"Rognik.2579" said:

> > @"SnowHawk.3615" said:

> > Separatists are basically racists posting propaganda about Charr since they still hold a grudge that their ancestors dealt even though the treaty doesn't affect them negatively.

> But it does affect them. It means their race has given up on getting back the land they once owned by the right of the Six. They are the descendants of those who fought for generations against the charr, and now the Queen is just going to let them keep it? Unacceptable!

 

It was supposed to stop bloodshed, no I'm not siding with the Charr.

And wasn't it originally the Charr lands and then it was the humans who took it and then the Charr wanted it back? If I'm incorrect in saying so then please let me know.

Imagine the Native Americans (Charr in this case) wanting and taking all their land back from the descendants of the settlers who stole it and then the descendants of the settlers defending their right to steal.

[Eekasqueak.7850]

> @"SnowHawk.3615" said:

> > @"Rognik.2579" said:

> > > @"SnowHawk.3615" said:

> > > Separatists are basically racists posting propaganda about Charr since they still hold a grudge that their ancestors dealt even though the treaty doesn't affect them negatively.

> > But it does affect them. It means their race has given up on getting back the land they once owned by the right of the Six. They are the descendants of those who fought for generations against the charr, and now the Queen is just going to let them keep it? Unacceptable!

>

> It was supposed to stop bloodshed, no I'm not siding with the Charr.

> And wasn't it originally the Charr lands and then it was the humans who took it and then the Charr wanted it back? If I'm incorrect in saying so then please let me know.

> Imagine the Native Americans (Charr in this case) wanting and taking all their land back from the descendants of the settlers who stole it and then the descendants of the settlers defending their right to steal.

 

Well it went Charr took it from some Grawl, then some time later Humans took it from Charr. I think the person you are replying too was being sarcastic though, or at least I hope they are.

 

I would still however argue that Charr have more right to it.

[SnowHawk.3615]

> @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > @"SnowHawk.3615" said:

> > > @"Rognik.2579" said:

> > > > @"SnowHawk.3615" said:

> > > > Separatists are basically racists posting propaganda about Charr since they still hold a grudge that their ancestors dealt even though the treaty doesn't affect them negatively.

> > > But it does affect them. It means their race has given up on getting back the land they once owned by the right of the Six. They are the descendants of those who fought for generations against the charr, and now the Queen is just going to let them keep it? Unacceptable!

> >

> > It was supposed to stop bloodshed, no I'm not siding with the Charr.

> > And wasn't it originally the Charr lands and then it was the humans who took it and then the Charr wanted it back? If I'm incorrect in saying so then please let me know.

> > Imagine the Native Americans (Charr in this case) wanting and taking all their land back from the descendants of the settlers who stole it and then the descendants of the settlers defending their right to steal.

>

> Well it went Charr took it from some Grawl, then some time later Humans took it from Charr. I think the person you are replying too was being sarcastic though, or at least I hope they are.

>

> I would still however argue that Charr have more right to it.

 

Yea they were being funny and i didn't catch it til just now

[Rognik.2579]

I might've been a bit silly in my reply, but it's still the attitude the Separatists take. They want the land of their ancestors back, even if the charr had older ancestors dead on that land.

 

It's the Renegades who I don't fully understand. They are protesting the peace treaty because... they want to keep killing humans, I guess?

[SnowHawk.3615]

> @"Rognik.2579" said:

> I might've been a bit silly in my reply, but it's still the attitude the Separatists take. They want the land of their ancestors back, even if the charr had older ancestors dead on that land.

>

> It's the Renegades who I don't fully understand. They are protesting the peace treaty because... they want to keep killing humans, I guess?

 

Yea you're right about the renegades- they want to kill anyone who doesn't side with them or is against them.

[Palador.2170]

> @"Rognik.2579" said:

> I might've been a bit silly in my reply, but it's still the attitude the Separatists take. They want the land of their ancestors back, even if the charr had older ancestors dead on that land.

>

> It's the Renegades who I don't fully understand. They are protesting the peace treaty because... they want to keep killing humans, I guess?

 

The peace treaty means they failed. That one human city was able to survive the might of the High Legions. How many charr have died trying to take that city? How many have lost part of their warband?

 

I can see why some of them don't want to give up. It's wrong, but I can understand it.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

> @"Rognik.2579" said:

> > @"SnowHawk.3615" said:

> > Separatists are basically racists posting propaganda about Charr since they still hold a grudge that their ancestors dealt even though the treaty doesn't affect them negatively.

> But it does affect them. It means their race has given up on getting back the land they once owned by the right of the Six. They are the descendants of those who fought for generations against the charr, and now the Queen is just going to let them keep it? Unacceptable!

 

What Palador said about the Renegades goes for the Separatists too. It's not just about their ancestors. It's neighbors, comrades, friends, family, loved ones, who could've been killed during the sieges as recently as five years before the start of the game (or possibly even closer). Yes, the entire society were brought up to hate charr and view them as monsters, but the charr reinforced that by killing the Ebonhawkers at every opportunity. This isn't ancient history. It was life up to the day before yesterday.

 

Of course, charr society was brought up to hate the humans and view them as the enemy, which the humans reinforced by killing charr at every opportunity. It cuts both ways.

[Oglaf.1074]

Let’s not forget about

 

- Charr eating human captives.

- Humans skinning Charr to make leather armour.

 

Clearly no love lost on either side.

[norbes.3620]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> Let’s not forget about

>

> - Charr eating human captives.

> - Humans skinning Charr to make leather armour.

>

> Clearly no love lost in either side.

 

Not so sure bout that. i definetly read about this "eat someone as most intimate sign of love" stuff. ok it was regarding psychopaths but ist still not that far off.

same way with the "wear the Skin of ur loved ones, so they will always be embracing u".

 

so maybe it was mutual showing their deepest love for each other cuz they did not know any better way to do

[Biziut.3594]

> @"Zyph.8401" said:

> > @"Biziut.3594" said:

> > (NO I AM NOT A FURRY OR ANYTHING >.< )

>

> Dude just own it it's 2018 no one cares anymore

>

 

Ok I will.

 

> @"MisterCheshire.4029" said:

> > @"Biziut.3594" said:

> > (NO I AM NOT A FURRY OR ANYTHING >.< )

>

> Psst! Pass it on. Biziut is a furry.

 

Let me groom you! Zyph said i can. \^o^/

[Nox Lucis.8341]

Fun fact! Charr tongues are so abrasive that they used use them as instruments of torture against human prisoners. This fell out of common practice after a few too many prisoners just got a raging hard-on, causing the interrogator to feel rather uncomfortable.