294 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

...You support them for wanting to cause all sorts of violence because Burkel died in a riot? There aren't peaceful riots. And you know that's just an excuse for them to try and get cheaper lyrium; they don't give a **** about Burkel. And even if they did...it's the height of hypocrisy to say that one or a few deaths is a travesty and so we need to compound to the tragedy by having an entire war against them for it. And who said Brother Burkel is a saint? He's just a religious guy who happened to want to start a Chantry in Orzammar. Do you REALLY think he'd want his home destroyed - when he apparently cared so much about the people he tried to 'enlighten' them - so the Chantry could get cheapter lyrium?



And they've led exalted marches against the Tevinter Imperium for daring to have male priests. They led one against the elves because of the lingering tensions between the Chantry nations and the Dales no matter what the spark was.



The Chantry is not the pure-hearted benevolent organization you seem to think it is. A lot of people in it are good and want to help people and their story of Andraste and the Maker might even be true but there is a LOT of corruption in it.



And again, those at Haven don't do human sacrifice for the lulz, they honestly feel it is what their Andraste goddess demands. It's what they've been taught and they're so isolated they literally know of no other way. You think condemning them for this is fair?

[Costin_Razvan]

I feel far more sympathetic to Kolgrim then I ever would to the Chantry.



If not for the fact that it resulted in losing Wynne, the best healer in the game, then I would destroy the Ashes every single bloody time.

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

The Chantry is not the pure-hearted benevolent organization you seem to think it is. A lot of people in it are good and want to help people and their story of Andraste and the Maker might even be true but there is a LOT of corruption in it.

I know this, I know this.... There is no need to be telling me something I have already had engraved against my will into the back of my skull with a cattle prod and a blowtorch, mind you. I have grown up realizing that there might be all gods, many gods, no gods, but that does not mean that the typical morals of the Bible, or I suppose the Chantry, or ANY religious teaching, are to be ignored entirely. In this case, I dare say that there are just as many people who hate religious ones as there are religious people who hate the faithless. It's all one big war, a war that many people prejudge. I have learned to throw away my prejudice against people who believe in a different god, but when people are killed because of it, just disgusts me. 

I do, however,  have friends who would damn me to Hell for choosing to side with a religion, even if I were not to be a fanatic. For every one person in the world of real life (or in this case Dragon Age; I will humor you) who curses others for not following a certain god, there is a single counterpart to that would single him/her/ME out from society (of gaming mostly) for choosing to stay the course of the religion that I grew up knowing. 

About your Chantry comment. Again very cruel of you to say everyone in the Chantry is all about lyrium. I am sure there are many people who would not endorse in such an opportunistic means. Burkel was killed for believing in a different god and non-violently defending his Chantry. You really believe that Burkel was violent in defending the Chantry? The dwarves are some of the most backwards people in the game I have ever met, almost as much as Sten. I certainly can imagine the Dwarves being thickheaded (what with Provings and endless alcohol) rushing to a hasty decision in killing Burkel without a legitimate reason to do so. The Chantry had the right to get answers from it, they were looking after one of their own.

[Sarah1281]

The dwarves are NOT backwards! And the qunari are far more technologically advanced then the other nations of Thedas. Also, Provings are to PREVENT violence. There is a proving match and people respect their decision.



I'm convinced lyrium was involved because Exalted Marches are the crusades of DA. Sure, some people - maybe even many - believed it was to save the Holy Land. Lay people don't call holy wars. The corrupt people who want money/power/resources do.



And when I read 'many people followed Burkel so the Assembly curtailed their rights and there were riots which ended up killing Burkel' that, regardless of their reasons for rioting, it wasn't going to be peaceful. Because, you know, it was a RIOT. How very Sten-like of you to decide that a culture so different from your own must be backwards and in need of salvation through conquering. The Chantry might have a 'right' to investigate but they sure as hell don't have a right to use one death as an excuse to conquer a country!

[Sarah1281]

And as 'backwards' as you claim the dwarves are, they can really claim the moral high ground on the not conquering others and forcing them to convert to their faith under penalty of death. And yes, the Assembly did curtail Burkel's rights but until he rioted no one killed him while you're openly advocating the destruction of a sovereign people because of one death. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that there was a 'peaceful protest' from either. The epilogue specifically says he was killed in the riots. The non-Andrastians aren't going to riot because the Andrastians lost rights.

[Bahlgan]

The dwarves are NOT backwards!

Look VERY carefully at Dust Town and tell me that again please. Ever notice how they treat their casteless? Look at Nedezda! She almost lost her legs because of how the guards treat the casteless!! Casteless who earned their place because of murder and thievery are one thing, but for those who are less fortunate, or for those who are BORN casteless, not given a single chance to make something of themselves, is NOT how a society is meant to be run! Think of how fast their Thaigs would have been reclaimed if the casteless were employed as excavation teams!!! Promoting the advancement of the casteless society was the ONLY reason I ever, EVER thought of siding with Bhelen, but go figure, he murdered his family all for the throne..... Sucks to choose only one king eh?

But the pompous shaper would have them "cursed since the day they were born" claiming that "each casteless is a sin". All clean slates should be given a chance, and because of the way they think, Orzammar is the only Thaig left. It is because of how they run THEIR society that Kal Shirol HATES them.

I WILL, however, give you credit that perhaps the Dwarves are not trying to conquer other lands. But ask yourself this: Is that because they are indeed truly and peerlessly a nice people? Or might it be possible they do not contain forces powerful enough to go around and seizing control of other cultures? They are practically endangered bordering extinct from four Blights, after all.

And the qunari are far more technologically advanced then the other nations of Thedas.

Technology is cool and all, but it does not define the advancement of a nation; its people do. And based on what Sten says to Alistair after his coronation during the Landsmeet, I would say that all they care about is conquering nations and forcing religion or the Qun on them. Yea, I'd say that is backwards.

Based on what I learned from Sten, the Qunari do not value the lives of culture of other lands, they force their teachings just like the Crusaders did to the Holy Land.

How very Sten-like of you to decide that a culture so different from your own must be backwards and in need of salvation through conquering.

Again wounded. Please don't kill me.

Seriously though, I believe I may have mis worded my opinion, for you have misunderstood my intentions of the statement I made earlier. I do not want the Chantry to conquer the Dwarves, or anyone. I simply wanted them to have their resolution based on the murder of Burkel. I said NOTHING about conquering. Vengeance must be delievered, however, for the single life of a saint. That is a very lonely person to be the only one to die amidst a crowd. After all, he meant nothing harmful in his Chantry.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that there was a 'peaceful protest' from either. The epilogue specifically says he was killed in the riots. The non-Andrastians aren't going to riot because the Andrastians lost rights.

.... Didn't the epilogue state the word "peacefully" or "non violent" in the description? No? Nevermind then.. Well I am sure even still Burkel wasn't violent. He as an individual did not seem such.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:30 .

[Sarah1281]

The dwarves do need to move beyond their traditions and they're killing themselves but I believe that the reason they don't conquer other lands is because they REALLY don't care about the Surface. It's a cultural thing, much like the reason that to date none of the nations of Thedas have tried to conquer Orzammar: they don't want to live underground. Every nation has problems. Admittedly, their casteless system I think IS backwards but that doesn't mean that everything about them is or even that the race as a whole falls more on the backwards side of the scale.

Again wounded. Please don't kill me.



Seriously though, I believe I may have mis worded my opinion, for you have misunderstood my intentions of the statement I made earlier. I do not want the Chantry to conquer the Dwarves, or anyone. I simply wanted them to have their resolution based on the murder of Burkel. I said NOTHING about conquering. Vengeance must be delievered, however, for the single life of a saint. That is a very lonely person to be the only one to die amidst a crowd. After all, he meant nothing harmful in his Chantry.

I didn't mean comparing you to Sten as an insult, either. He's an advocate of conquering and converting people who believe differently and since that's what I saw your post as saying, the comparison seemed apt.



The Chantry does not have saints. And just because Burkel opened up a Chantry doesn't mean he would qualify as one either way. You say you don't want Orzammar to be conquered by the Chantry but what do you think a successful Exalted March is? They failed to conquer the Tevinter Imperium (twice, I think) but they succeeded against the Dales and killed nearly everyone, enslaved those that survived, and utterly decimated their home and culture. THAT is waht an Exalted March is. I don't see any way the Chantry can try to seek redress for Burkel's death since the dwarves don't care about the Chantry or the Surface in general without starting a war and his death, no matter if he was the second coming of Andraste herself, is simply not worth making Orzammar the new Dales.

.... Didn't the epilogue state the word "peacefully" or "non violent" in the description? No? Nevermind then.. Well I am sure even still Burkel wasn't violent. He as an individual did not seem such.

It didn't say 'peaceful' it said 'riot.' And he couldn't have been killed IN the riot if he wasn't there. Even if he was just trying to calm everyone down, people die in riots. He may not even have been specifically targeted.

[Bahlgan]

I didn't mean comparing you to Sten as an insult, either. He's an advocate of conquering and converting people who believe differently and since that's what I saw your post as saying, the comparison seemed apt.

I realized this after the first time. Call me hypochondriac then? I believe I actually might be one in real life.

The Chantry does not have saints.

This isn't one of those "My ancestors got killed in the Crusades so I hate the very definition of saints" or "Everyone who fights for the Chantry is heartless" statements, is it? In case it IS, I take great offense to that. Let me say once again that it IS possible to fight for a religion WITHOUT the pompousness, and in fact, I dare say it is quite common; just not common enough for faithless ones to drop the past. My main character, who is the same as my profile name, is a religious person, but he understands not to let either money, politics, or religion govern his judgment; something he learned from Bryce and Eleanor.

And just because Burkel opened up a Chantry doesn't mean he would qualify as one either way. You say you don't want Orzammar to be conquered by the Chantry but what do you think a successful Exalted March is? They failed to conquer the Tevinter Imperium (twice, I think) but they succeeded against the Dales and killed nearly everyone, enslaved those that survived, and utterly decimated their home and culture. THAT is waht an Exalted March is. I don't see any way the Chantry can try to seek redress for Burkel's death since the dwarves don't care about the Chantry or the Surface in general without starting a war and his death, no matter if he was the second coming of Andraste herself, is simply not worth making Orzammar the new Dales.

It didn't say 'peaceful' it said 'riot.' And he couldn't have been killed IN the riot if he wasn't there. Even if he was just trying to calm everyone down, people die in riots. He may not even have been specifically targeted.

I suppose it is safe to say this:



Perhaps an Exalted March would be excessive. I was wrong. I am sorry. BUT... SOMETHING must be done to avenge those who died. Would it be wise to say that we both agree to something of any sort being done? Either way, the dwarves will undo themselves if they keep slaying like that. In my epilogue, the dwarves are already eating each other alive for the throne since Harrowmont's death.



......Fuc**** Tevinters... Gotta ALWAYS enslave everything eh?

[Sarah1281]

This isn't one of those "My ancestors got killed in the Crusades so I hate the very definition of saints" or "Everyone who fights for the Chantry is heartless" statements, is it? In case it IS, I take great offense to that. Let me say once again that it IS possible to fight for a religion WITHOUT the pompousness, and in fact, I dare say it is quite common; just not common enough for faithless ones to drop the past. My main character, who is the same as my profile name, is a religious person, but he understands not to let either money, politics, or religion govern his judgment; something he learned from Bryce and Eleanor.

No, it's a 'the religion of Chantry does not have anything that is comparable to a saint' thing. Just look at how Leliana's vision is received: no one believes her and some see it as heresy, particularly the Guardian. They think it's being arrogant to presume you're on the same level as Andraste.

BUT... SOMETHING must be done to avenge those who died. Would it be wise to say that we both agree to something of any sort being done?

Yeah, the dwarves have enough problems without continued religious and caste persecution, particularly with the darkspawn breathing down their necks all the time and people abandoning the city to go to the Surface.

[maxernst]

Bahlgan wrote...

maxernst wrote...

An exalted march is a human sacrifice on a far greater scale than anything Haven has ever contemplated.  Hell, I'm guessing the Harrowing would kill far more innocent people than Haven year in, year out.  And as I said before, once you've discovered their chantry, it's self-defense.  If the Chantry hears about Haven, they have good reason to think the Chantry will exterminate them.  It will be just like Beziers, in the real world.

I do not know what exactly happened between the Dalish and the Chantry for them to start an Exalted March back after Andraste's fall, but I can tell you (based on Brother Burkel's death in a possible epilogue) that their typical version of an Exalted March is by means of vengeance of those who were simply playing as messengers of the Maker. I entirely support them if they choose to raid Orzammar for slaying an innocent life. Burkel didn't deserve to die; he led a NON-violent protest. Think about MLK Jr, all his protests were non violent, and he was murdered by someone; I do now know who. Think of how mad supporters of MLK were when they found out or witnessed the murder of a saint. Only the truest of ***holes would partake in the murdering of pure hearts. No more need be said about the Exalted March.

So you think an appropriate response to the murder of Martin Luther King would have been to murder practically every white person in Memphis?  That's what calling an "Exalted March" as punishment for murdering one man would be.  To use a much more appropriate analogy, should the Huron Indians have all been massacred because of what they did to Jean de Brebeuf? 

[Bahlgan]

maxernst wrote...

So you think an appropriate response to the murder of Martin Luther King would have been to murder practically every white person in Memphis?

Nope, but something must be done. What? You support letting those murderers to get away with it?

That's what calling an "Exalted March" as punishment for murdering one man would be.  To use a much more appropriate analogy, should the Huron Indians have all been massacred because of what they did to Jean de Brebeuf? 

Again no, I am not suggesting that millions of people die for the life of one, though measures need to be taken to ensure that the ONE that died hadn't been slain, least of all in vain.

No, it's a 'the religion of Chantry does not have anything that is comparable to a saint' thing. Just look at how Leliana's vision is received: no one believes her and some see it as heresy, particularly the Guardian. They think it's being arrogant to presume you're on the same level as Andraste.

Case closed. Guardian is a pompous bastard when it comes to the Chantry circle, though he seems like a nice person, given the chance. Why, have you ever tried (if you are a female Warden) bringing him a version of the Chantry bible? His approval might jump up thirty points, blush like a Templar would, and just change his religious views to just about anything you say!

Yeah, the dwarves have enough problems without continued religious and caste persecution, particularly with the darkspawn breathing down their necks all the time and people abandoning the city to go to the Surface.

Then perhaps maybe the dwarves are in no place to be going around killing just about any outsider or visitor they see fit. If they have enough problems facing the Darkspawn, you'd think they would be smart enough NOT to go adding more trouble rubble to their doorsteps.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 19 juillet 2010 - 09:07 .

[Sarah1281]

Case closed. Guardian is a pompous bastard when it comes to the Chantry circle, though he seems like a nice person, given the chance. Why, have you ever tried (if you are a female Warden) bringing him a version of the Chantry bible? His approval might jump up thirty points, blush like a Templar would, and just change his religious views to just about anything you say!

Um, what? That has nothing to do with what I said which is that you're misusing the word saint. Burkel can be considered a martyr and a missionary but not a saint.



And Burkel, as a citizen of Orzammar, should have his death looked into and addressed by Orzammar officials. If the Chantry feels they're ignoring it then maybe they could lean on them about the lyrium trade but an invasion is simply not an appropriate way of dealing with the death of one or a few people in a different country that has largely not accepted you.

[Sarah1281]

Then perhaps maybe the dwarves are in no place to be going around killing just about any outsider or visitor they see fit. If they have enough problems facing the Darkspawn, you'd think they would be smart enough NOT to go adding more trouble rubble to their doorsteps.

A riot killing one non-outsider like Burkel is not them randomly going around killing anyone they see fit. It was a tragedy it happened but it's for Orzammar to deal with, not the Chantry. The fact he happened to have started up his Chantry in Orzammar does NOT give them a right to get involved. Why would it?

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote..

Um, what? That has nothing to do with what I said which is that you're misusing the word saint. Burkel can be considered a martyr and a missionary but not a saint.

And Burkel, as a citizen of Orzammar, should have his death looked into and addressed by Orzammar officials. If the Chantry feels they're ignoring it then maybe they could lean on them about the lyrium trade but an invasion is simply not an appropriate way of dealing with the death of one or a few people in a different country that has largely not accepted you.

In the name of God which ever god you choose to believe in, drop the invasion, I've already changed my claim on this!! It's been done and stamped on like a dead horse!! Please!! Now...

As for the Burkel thing, it's all semantics at this point: Saint, martyr, they both are very good peoeple. There is no need to argue about the difference between one word and another if I mean them both for the same purpose.

With that out of the way, I am pretty much fine with everything else you said.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 19 juillet 2010 - 09:13 .

[Sarah1281]

I don't feel that the Chantry could possibly get involved in Burkel's death without an invasion as Orzammar doesn't give a **** about them. They could POSSIBLY try to boycott lyrium which makes up most of Orzammar's wealth but their templars and mages desperately need it and so doing so would only strengthen the black market. That's why I mentioned an invasion.



And it's really not just pointless semantics. Saints are individuals of exceptional holiness who are important in many religions, particularly Christianity. If you call him a saint you're making the case that he is incredibly holy and can perform miracles, hears from the Maker, ect. He doesn't and the Chantry is so dead-set on their 'the Maker's gone' position that they wouldn't even have anything comparable to saints there. Andraste would be their sole saint. A martyr is someone who dies for a cause or a belief. Burkel died trying to get equal rights for the Andrastian dwarves. In every day usage you can just call a good person a saint but when discussing religion - and you can't talk about Brother Burkel without it - you do need to watch your usage more.

[Bahlgan]

you do need to watch your usage more.

Oh Lawd oh Lawd puhh leaaase forgive meh!! I used words in vain!!!!



...Anyway that was a lovely debate. No cursing at each other, no nothing bad. Only thing left I have to disagree with you on is that a saint is not restricted as the only aspects you laid out. A saint can also be generalized as someone who devotes his life, or her life, to the cause of helping out others. Saints are not necessarily restricted to performing the tasks which you described. What do all saints have in common in real life? One thing - they place others before themselves.

[darkrose]

Sarah1281 wrote...

You could argue that Zathrian has the right to seek vengeance on those that killed his children. But what about their descendents and just random people (including Danayla from his own clan) who are innocent and did nothing to deserve the curse that Zathrian put on centuries ago? How can that possibly be justified?

Honestly? My Tabris had a really hard time with that, because when she finds out why the curse was created, her initial response is, "****ing shems aren't innocent--they just haven't gotten around to the raping yet." The only reason I'm able to justify having her go for the compromise is that looking at Zathrian is kind of like looking in a mirror--and she doesn't actually like what she sees. That's kind of a turning point for her. 

On the other hand, she has absolutely no problem killing Loghain. In my head, she looks at Loghain and says, "I had to get my father out of a cage. If I'd been five minutes later, he'd be on an auction block in Minrathrous right now. Do you honestly think I'm going to let you live, knowing that you were responsible for selling my friends and family into slavery? Anora, you really might want to take a couple of steps back."

[Sarah1281]

Well your Tabris wouldn't be justified in killing them if it's out of hatred for humans. She could do it anyway but it would be as morally bankrupt an act for her as it is for Zathrian. Not saying it's not UNDERSTANDABLE but it's not justifiable.

[Bahlgan]

darkrose wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

You could argue that Zathrian has the right to seek vengeance on those that killed his children. But what about their descendents and just random people (including Danayla from his own clan) who are innocent and did nothing to deserve the curse that Zathrian put on centuries ago? How can that possibly be justified?

Honestly? My Tabris had a really hard time with that, because when she finds out why the curse was created, her initial response is, "****ing shems aren't innocent--they just haven't gotten around to the raping yet." The only reason I'm able to justify having her go for the compromise is that looking at Zathrian is kind of like looking in a mirror--and she doesn't actually like what she sees. That's kind of a turning point for her. 

On the other hand, she has absolutely no problem killing Loghain. In my head, she looks at Loghain and says, "I had to get my father out of a cage. If I'd been five minutes later, he'd be on an auction block in Minrathrous right now. Do you honestly think I'm going to let you live, knowing that you were responsible for selling my friends and family into slavery? Anora, you really might want to take a couple of steps back."

To let the ones who murdered, raped, killed, or slaughtered etc.... live means to let them get away with it. From what I have learned in Dragon Age, you cannot really  ever rely on anyone to avenge you or your family. YOU are the weapon of your own avenging wrath. Now... I am all for killing Loghain AND Howe (which I have no choice either way).. However, to racially hate humans, or shem, because of a few bad ones; really really bad ones, makes you no better than the shems. You probably know this already though.

That being said, I am a very vengeful person, in DA:O (and in real life, unfortunately for some) but I do know the difference between a soiled and innocent soul. I did not prosecute Howe's family on my own accord. In my game, it was Alistair who had thought of it before me and thus stripped the Arling for the Wardens.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 19 juillet 2010 - 11:45 .

[darkrose]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Well your Tabris wouldn't be justified in killing them if it's out of hatred for humans. She could do it anyway but it would be as morally bankrupt an act for her as it is for Zathrian. Not saying it's not UNDERSTANDABLE but it's not justifiable.

I didn't say it was justifiable for me. However, for the character who's dealing with a lifetime's worth of PTSD and who thinks the Grey Warden nightmares are a step up from reliving seeing her mother killed....it's not an easy decision. I think that's kind of the whole point--there are compelling emotional arguments either way.

[darkrose]

Bahlgan wrote...

darkrose wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

You could argue that Zathrian has the right to seek vengeance on those that killed his children. But what about their descendents and just random people (including Danayla from his own clan) who are innocent and did nothing to deserve the curse that Zathrian put on centuries ago? How can that possibly be justified?

Honestly? My Tabris had a really hard time with that, because when she finds out why the curse was created, her initial response is, "****ing shems aren't innocent--they just haven't gotten around to the raping yet." The only reason I'm able to justify having her go for the compromise is that looking at Zathrian is kind of like looking in a mirror--and she doesn't actually like what she sees. That's kind of a turning point for her. 

On the other hand, she has absolutely no problem killing Loghain. In my head, she looks at Loghain and says, "I had to get my father out of a cage. If I'd been five minutes later, he'd be on an auction block in Minrathrous right now. Do you honestly think I'm going to let you live, knowing that you were responsible for selling my friends and family into slavery? Anora, you really might want to take a couple of steps back."

To let the ones who murdered, raped, killed, or slaughtered etc.... live means to let them get away with it. From what I have learned in Dragon Age, you cannot really  ever rely on anyone to avenge you or your family. YOU are the weapon of your own avenging wrath. Now... I am all for killing Loghain AND Howe (which I have no choice either way).. However, to racially hate humans, or shem, because of a few bad ones; really really bad ones, makes you no better than the shems. You probably know this already though.

I know that quite well. My character, on the other hand, has 20 years less experience than I do, and more up close and personal experience with racial oppression than I do. She doesn't actually hate humans, but she does have a very hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt. Even in her own party, she's got Leliana telling her about how well the Orlesian nobles treat their elven servants--like pampered pets. Half of the NPC's are casually racist without even thinking about it. It's not until later in the game that humans almost all respond to her as a Grey Warden first. Even Alistair has some fail moments, but he gets a pass because he does whatever she tells him to. <_<

What really changes her is the Dalish, both because she does figure out that Zathrian's way isn't the way she wants to go--and because many of the Dalish she meets during that quest are rather condescending towards the city elves. Between that and Orzammar, she comes to the conclusion that regardless of race, people suck, but the darkspawn still suck harder.

[Bahlgan]

I commend you on how well you are able to piece together your story! Few are as religious as you are, even fewer still can learn to appreciate the irony in anything bad that can happen to characters in said story.

[Sarah1281]

What does religion have to do with her RPing story about her PTSD CE who mellows out around the Dalish?

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

What does religion have to do with her RPing story about her PTSD CE who mellows out around the Dalish?

The morals to her story and how she learns not to become too pre judging fit quite well. Granted, I too would have slit her char's throat with my Starfang the first chance I got for being called anything racist, but quite honestly, she does a good job.

[Sarah1281]

Bahlgan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

What does religion have to do with her RPing story about her PTSD CE who mellows out around the Dalish?

The morals to her story and how she learns not to become too pre judging fit quite well. Granted, I too would have slit her char's throat with my Starfang the first chance I got for being called anything racist, but quite honestly, she does a good job.

So you need religion to have morals or learn tolerance?