1019 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

IanPolaris wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

The writers seem to place The Chantry as the oppressors... SEEM, not saying they do. But didn't David Gaider express that the Chantrys actions towards mages are necessary and understandable. And how people compare it to the moral views of modern day society but even nowdays if they were real in his words then we would want something done about.. Rough recollection of what he said.

Don't go by rough recollections when discussing DG quotes.  DG very cleverly tries to make you think he says things that he doesn't in fact actually say.  He should have a law degree.  In this case DG explained by the Chantry's policites were perceived to be necessary and understandable and took a rather unwarrented and personal dig at 21st century morality (which IMO was way over the line for a game writer), but he never actually said in WoG mode that they were. 

As for the cases of Mages living freely with non mages.. Aren't most those people nutters? The only good example really is Rivain

...Im gonna get flamed for this, lol.

Sure you are because it deserves to be flamed.  The only group that had mages living alongside non-mages that were 'nutters' where the Dragon Cultists of Haven.  That's it.  The Chasind may be barbarians but they aren't nutters.  Neither are the Rivvain or the Dalish.  Neither are the Tevinter (ancient or modern).  Remember it was a couple of centuries before even ANDRASTIAN nations started to segretate mages by force.

-Polaris

Yeah I was tired when I wrote that, completely forgot about The Chasind and Dalish.. Tevinter still permits Slavery and treats mages as the betters of non mages... So living along side each other isn't exactly the best term to use. The Magisters houses literally stand higher over the city then any other building..  But yeah your right, Dalish are a good example.. Chasind most likely are as well, we know so little of them and dont even really speak to one that isn't screaming "THE LEGIONS OF EVIL blah blah blah" but still, its probably safe to assume that they do live alongside each other peacefully. Theres probably even codex's mentioning it which I cant remember

[Augustei]

IanPolaris wrote...
They most certainly can be condemned.

No.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 février 2011 - 11:25 .

[IanPolaris]

XxDeonxX wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
They most certainly can be condemned.

No.

I just did so obviously the Chantry can be condemned.  The Chantry didn't have to destroy the Elven Culture in direct contravention to Andraste's own promise, but they did.  That's reason enough to condemn the Chantry even if everything else the Chantry said about this exalted march is true (and I don't think either one of us believes that it is for a moment).

-Polaris

[Augustei]

IanPolaris wrote...
As for outlawing the Elven religion, that was the Chantry from first
to last, and that makes them very much guilty of cultural genocide. 
Various Kings may have lent troops, but they marched under the Chantry's
banner and that means the Chantry takes moral responsibility for their
actions.  No getting around it.

Right.. So what Suetonius did in the bouddican revolt left only Rome to blame.. his harsh actions his... Oh wait. The Emperor dismissed him because of his harsh actions. Buut.. Since he marched under a Roman Banner. I guess its their damn fault for those actions. Or at least this would be the case if you were either one of the Barbarians that suffered or just daft as all hell

[LoneStalker]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Most people on these forums seem to hate the chantry.. Generally because they relate this game to real life and the opinions they have formed IRL. seem to carry over to Dragon age, So it would seem.. But lets not talk about that.

I know, real world politics and stuff is not the issue in a game forum and we're strongly encouraged not to speak about these. However, this is the primary reason I dislike the Chantry. Without getting specific, let me explain:

If one is an atheist, it's expected that he/she may not favor the idea of any organized religon, like Chantry. Also if one's a religious person, he/she probably dislikes the idea of saying "Thank the Maker" at every opportunity too. So take your pick between these two.

As for the in game reason, I remember what they did in Dales...

[Augustei]

IanPolaris wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
They most certainly can be condemned.

No.

I just did so obviously the Chantry can be condemned.  The Chantry didn't have to destroy the Elven Culture in direct contravention to Andraste's own promise, but they did.  That's reason enough to condemn the Chantry even if everything else the Chantry said about this exalted march is true (and I don't think either one of us believes that it is for a moment).

-Polaris

The follow up actions of an event.. Cannot determine if the original cause of an event was just..

They cannot Justify what they did to elven culture and the banning of their religious worship..
You cannot however condemn the whole War with the dales..

if everything else the Chantry said about this exalted march is true

No I dont really believe it, but im not dismissing their claims completely without proper evidence. Like Im saying, They cannot Justify their actions at all unless they can provide some better proof.. Likewise we cannot condemn them either. As much as people would like to just to have yet another thing to hold against the chantry.

We both agree the chantry has alot of faults and alot to answer for. I just dont think The Dales is definitly one of them.. It certainly COULD be.. But like that old saying goes "Innocent until proven guilty" To take the viewpoint that people are, we might as well just sentence people to life prison for simple suspision. Thats the equivilent of what Condemning their actions is

IF everything else the chantry said were true. Which yes, I do doubt. Not saying all of it isn't true but its inevitable that some of it is. But if everything was true, then the war was completely justifiable.. Human sacrifices were being made (This is actually the point I doubt most) They were invading Orlesian Territory and sacking villages and by extension of that sacking Chantrys. Impaling the Revered mothers and priests etc etc..

The war itself could possibly be justifiable.. It cannot be condemned, it cannot be justified.

Its the follow up actions of the war that indeed can be condemned. But not the war itself

[Augustei]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

I will make it very simple. The chantry is responsible first and last for all actions done during an Exalted March just as ultimately the Roman Catholic Church was (and was held) responsible by the Saracens for the actions of the Crusaders. The fact that nations sent their own armies under their own kings is not relevant. They marched under the Banner of the Chantry, and thus it's up to the Chantry to bear the moral responsibilty for the armies gathered.

If you are so sure the Chantry is lily white w/r/t the Dales, then why was the Verse of Shartan removed by Divine Renata DURING (not after) that march, and why were elves forbidden from practicing their own religion and called heathens.

I think the answer is clear.

-Polaris

Those were actual Templar forces bearing the holy cross across their shields and tabards. Those were Church Soldiers essentially.. We dont know if the Templars were the ones who lead the charge into the dales and the battles of the dales... They most likely were. it was their march after all.. Just thought I would point that out though. unlikely as it is, It is still a possibility

[IanPolaris]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Right.. So what Suetonius did in the bouddican revolt left only Rome to blame.. his harsh actions his... Oh wait. The Emperor dismissed him because of his harsh actions. Buut.. Since he marched under a Roman Banner. I guess its their damn fault for those actions. Or at least this would be the case if you were either one of the Barbarians that suffered or just daft as all hell

Don't pull a "Lotion" and put words in my mouth.  I never said the word "only".  In the historical case you are talking about Rome WAS to blame and the Empereror knew it.  This is WHY the Emperor dismissed him.  It's called enforcing accountability.  The Chantry doesn't even aknowledge what they did to the Dales was wrong much less held anyone accountable!

-Polaris

[earl of the north]

I don't care about the Chantry at all in real life, In game (over numerous playthroughs) my.....

Dalish Elves - generally tolerated the Chantry, since it made protecting the Clans easier which was always their priority.

Noble Humans - usually pro-Chantry due to their upbringings and saw the Chantry as a force for good.

Circle Mage - split between pro-Chantry mages who saw the greater good in the circle system and anti-Chantry mages who just wanted to tear the whole corrupt system down.

City Elves - usually pro-Chantry, since the Chantry was the only good humans they knew before leaving the alienage.

Noble Dwarfs - Found the Chantry amusing more than anything and often asked for blessings while chuckling under their breath.

Casteless Dwarfs (always found it strange that the game refers to them as commoners, when they are not.) - Couldn't generally care less about the Chantry or any other human organisation, mainly just wanted a little power and influence.....and to ensure their sister (and child) were looked after in the future.

Modifié par earl of the north, 08 février 2011 - 12:26 .

[Mlaar]

IanPolaris wrote...
If you are so sure the Chantry is lily white w/r/t the Dales, then why was the Verse of Shartan removed by Divine Renata DURING (not after) that march, and why were elves forbidden from practicing their own religion and called heathens.

I think the answer is clear.

-Polaris

Can you qoute me the verse that was removed?
I have no idea what it entails but perhaps it highlights pagan rituals and horrors that the elves inflict on others and was deemed it could encite racial hatred so was duley removed who knows!! for one opinion thier is always an opposing view and when forthcomming facts are limited to guesswork neither view is entirely wrong or right.

When you look at a fantasy religion from our enlightend modern day perspective you will always see flaws and corruptions but walk a mile in a npc who has been born raised and lived by that religion and you see the good they do in the land yes the elves were heathens yes they followed pagan gods but if religion is based in any way close to ours then people were more single minded in thier beliefs ( in that era) to think other whys would be incomprehensible

At the end of the day for all the years the chantry has been around we the player have had sparse information handed to us, most of these are extreme situations to play on emotions yet we deem to judge for good or bad how this organisation should be viewed!!

I for example deem the Chantry as a whole works for the greater good, I also realise that has a few bad eggs which tarnish its pure white surface but would never condem the whole. It provides a belief system that instills unity, hope, trust, and all the many other aspects for an improved society

I do however have an open mind and if you can provide hard facts that show the evil doings of the chantry for the period of lets say 800 years and not just one or two wrong doings then I might just evaluate my conclusions

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

One cannot claim responsibiltiy for action of another. Each one makes his own decisions. You cannot blame the Chantry just becase it calls for aid against a common foe.
The blame chain doesn't work as an argument, remember?

Wrong.

A commander is legally and morally responsible for the conduct of his men even if he lacks personal knowledge.  Multiple German commanders were sentenced to war crimes (and Japanese ones) on that basis alone, and this principle is enshrined in international law.  Even in the middleages, it was accepted that a Lord was responsible for the conduct of his knights and men-at-arms.

The same applies here.  The Chantry calls the exalted march.  That makes the chantry responsible for all actions done in her name during it.  It's not "blame chain".  It's called accountability under the chain of command.

-Polaris

Wrong.
The Chantry calls for an March, it doesn't really command it. Not in any military command structure way.

Provide proof that the Chantry could stop the destruction of the Dales in time (or at all).
Provide proof that it had enough pull to defiy several nations.

Not to mention that the "chain of command" resposiblity is utter bull****, especially in internaltion law, with double-standards and hypocrites everywhere.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
They most certainly can be condemned.

No.

I just did so obviously the Chantry can be condemned.

I'm condeming you.
That means that you're obviously guilty of henius things...otherwise, I wouldn't have condemned you, right?

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Right.. So what Suetonius did in the bouddican revolt left only Rome to blame.. his harsh actions his... Oh wait. The Emperor dismissed him because of his harsh actions. Buut.. Since he marched under a Roman Banner. I guess its their damn fault for those actions. Or at least this would be the case if you were either one of the Barbarians that suffered or just daft as all hell

Don't pull a "Lotion" and put words in my mouth.  I never said the word "only".  In the historical case you are talking about Rome WAS to blame and the Empereror knew it.  This is WHY the Emperor dismissed him.  It's called enforcing accountability.  The Chantry doesn't even aknowledge what they did to the Dales was wrong much less held anyone accountable!

-Polaris

You know they held no one accountable, how? But even if they didn't the destruction of the Dales is totally justifiable. And it doesn't contradict the Chant. The Chant only says that Shartan greatly assisted Andraste, and that Andraste granted thema  homeland.
They destroyed the Dales because the Dalish culture would always be incompatible with the Orlesian. It was a case of total war. Which did get praticed in medival ages. Wars/conflicts not ending with the complete annihilation of a culture is relatively modern.

[svendigo]

Yeah I like the chantry. They do not worship an evil or indifferent god, and their members are generally nice without being overly self-righteous. Their attitude to mages is very realistic.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wrong.
The Chantry calls for an March, it doesn't really command it. Not in any military command structure way.

The Chantry called a holy war against the Dales - how can you say they aren't responsible when they're calling for the other Andrastian nations to lend them aid against the Dalish?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Provide proof that the Chantry could stop the destruction of the Dales in time (or at all).
Provide proof that it had enough pull to defiy several nations.

They declared an Exalted March against the Dales. This isn't in dispute.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not to mention that the "chain of command" resposiblity is utter bull****, especially in internaltion law, with double-standards and hypocrites everywhere.

Considering that the ruler of Ferelden is officially crowned the new ruler by a member of the Chantry and they supported the occupation by Orlais for generations, I fail to see how they don't have any influence with the other Andrastian nations.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm condeming you.
That means that you're obviously guilty of henius things...otherwise, I wouldn't have condemned you, right?

Are you planning on making any sense, Lotion? If the Chantry started the war because the Dalish refused to convert to the Chantry of Andraste, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable if the Dalish codex entry is the correct one.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You know they held no one accountable, how? But even if they didn't the destruction of the Dales is totally justifiable. And it doesn't contradict the Chant. The Chant only says that Shartan greatly assisted Andraste, and that Andraste granted thema  homeland.
They destroyed the Dales because the Dalish culture would always be incompatible with the Orlesian. It was a case of total war. Which did get praticed in medival ages. Wars/conflicts not ending with the complete annihilation of a culture is relatively modern.

How is it justifable if the Chantry started a war over the Dalish elves refusal to convert to their reliigon? Also, they removed the mention of Shartan during the Exalted March against the Dales.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
They destroyed the Dales because the Dalish culture would always be incompatible with the Orlesian. It was a case of total war. Which did get praticed in medival ages. Wars/conflicts not ending with the complete annihilation of a culture is relatively modern.

Say WHAT?!?  Total war was almost never practiced except in modern times.  The idea of "unconditional surrender" in WWII was a shocking idea to the US' Western European allies for example.  Even the vicious thirty years war that caused tens of millions of casualties and completely distorted European politics for a century was never total war. 

Total War like you say was historically quite rare, and very much fought with the explicit and premediated intent of cultural Genocide, and the chantry is guilty of it.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
They destroyed the Dales because the Dalish culture would always be incompatible with the Orlesian. It was a case of total war. Which did get praticed in medival ages. Wars/conflicts not ending with the complete annihilation of a culture is relatively modern.

Say WHAT?!?  Total war was almost never practiced except in modern times.  The idea of "unconditional surrender" in WWII was a shocking idea to the US' Western European allies for example.  Even the vicious thirty years war that caused tens of millions of casualties and completely distorted European politics for a century was never total war. 

Total War like you say was historically quite rare, and very much fought with the explicit and premediated intent of cultural Genocide, and the chantry is guilty of it.

-Polaris

Unconditional surrender does not equate total war. Hell.. A surrender is not even neccesary during total war. Total war is about using every last resource at your disposable to fuel your warmachine to destroy your enemy. Many countries, states and city states throughout history has been obliterated by this. Just take a quick look at the history of China and Japan.  No, total war is NOT a modern thing.
Did I deny the chantry was in total war with the Dales? No. Did I call it justifiable? Yes. And I still think it is.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Unconditional surrender does not equate total war. Hell.. A surrender is not even neccesary during total war. Total war is about using every last resource at your disposable to fuel your warmachine to destroy your enemy. Many countries, states and city states throughout history has been obliterated by this. Just take a quick look at the history of China and Japan.  No, total war is NOT a modern thing.
Did I deny the chantry was in total war with the Dales? No. Did I call it justifiable? Yes. And I still think it is.

Did total war happen in history?  Sure, but it sure wasn't a normal thing.  Why?  Because it's hard to go to war and stay at war for an extended period of time.  As often as not in ancient times, if a war went on too long, both sides would pack up and go home with an undeclared truce and a resumption of things prior to hostilities.

Total war against the Dales was not justifiable and neither was the cultural genocide the Chantry practiced afterwords.  It was completely unnecessary.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Even the most brutal and efficient conquerers in history most notably Ghengis Khan did NOT practice total war.  He always gave his enemies a chance to surrender when it became clear that they were beaten, and indeed was especially generous to those that surrendered straight up.  If you did NOT surrender when you became beseiged and it was hopeless.....well, you paid for it in blood but that's hardly total war.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 février 2011 - 08:04 .

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[Augustei]

Total war is far more commonplace in modern times then Ancient and medieval times but it wasn't out of the ordinary in ancient and medieval times. However not out of the ordinary and commonplace can be considered two different things. So interpret it how you wish.



Total war wasn't really commonplace in Europe but mainly in Asia, The Mongols and their invasions of china were common practice of total war. In fact many wars the Mongols involved themselves in involved total war.



Total War was not to common in Europe though, only really being used in the Peloponnesian War and The German Peasent war and French religious wars... I guess the barbarian invasion of rome is total war as well, but that was due to extreme desperation on Romes part

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Unconditional surrender does not equate total war. Hell.. A surrender is not even neccesary during total war. Total war is about using every last resource at your disposable to fuel your warmachine to destroy your enemy. Many countries, states and city states throughout history has been obliterated by this. Just take a quick look at the history of China and Japan.  No, total war is NOT a modern thing.
Did I deny the chantry was in total war with the Dales? No. Did I call it justifiable? Yes. And I still think it is.

Did total war happen in history?  Sure, but it sure wasn't a normal thing.  Why?  Because it's hard to go to war and stay at war for an extended period of time.  As often as not in ancient times, if a war went on too long, both sides would pack up and go home with an undeclared truce and a resumption of things prior to hostilities.

Uhm... What does wether it happend often or not have to do with anything? It has happened. Often even.

IanPolaris wrote...

Total war against the Dales was not justifiable and neither was the cultural genocide the Chantry practiced afterwords.  It was completely unnecessary.

Yes it was. The Dales was an extremely hostile culture towards Orlais. It was a threat. Once they had beaten the Dales back to the original borders, Orlais was posed with a choice: Do they let the threat retreat and lick its wounds, or do they eliminate the threat while it is weakened.

IanPolaris wrote...

Edit PS:  Even the most brutal and efficient conquerers in history most notably Ghengis Khan did NOT practice total war.  He always gave his enemies a chance to surrender when it became clear that they were beaten, and indeed was especially generous to those that surrendered straight up.  If you did NOT surrender when you became beseiged and it was hopeless.....well, you paid for it in blood but that's hardly total war.

Uhm.. Ghengis Khan was one of the most notorious practitioners of total war. A straight up text book example. The way he conqured his way through most of Asia, was total war. Submit or die. Total destruction of nation/tribe/city attacked. He didn't go as far as to outlaw religion though. Which arguably lead to his empires downfall some century, and a half later.

[Augustei]

"During the Middle Ages, the Mongols in the 13th century practised total war"

"The Mongols practised Total war"

"Total War"

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 février 2011 - 10:01 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Total war is far more commonplace in modern times then Ancient and medieval times but it wasn't out of the ordinary in ancient and medieval times. However not out of the ordinary and commonplace can be considered two different things. So interpret it how you wish.

Total war wasn't really commonplace in Europe but mainly in Asia, The Mongols and their invasions of china were common practice of total war. In fact many wars the Mongols involved themselves in involved total war.

Total War was not to common in Europe though, only really being used in the Peloponnesian War and The German Peasent war and French religious wars... I guess the barbarian invasion of rome is total war as well, but that was due to extreme desperation on Romes part

How many cases of total war have we had in the last two centuries? 4-5 tops. Take the era between 1100-1300 and you can count at least twice that. Total war is a dead practice in modern times. WW2 is the last of its kind.

Total war was common enough in medieval Europe. Many wars in Europe were on a big enough scale to be classified as total war.

[Augustei]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Total war is far more commonplace in modern times then Ancient and medieval times but it wasn't out of the ordinary in ancient and medieval times. However not out of the ordinary and commonplace can be considered two different things. So interpret it how you wish.

Total war wasn't really commonplace in Europe but mainly in Asia, The Mongols and their invasions of china were common practice of total war. In fact many wars the Mongols involved themselves in involved total war.

Total War was not to common in Europe though, only really being used in the Peloponnesian War and The German Peasent war and French religious wars... I guess the barbarian invasion of rome is total war as well, but that was due to extreme desperation on Romes part

How many cases of total war have we had in the last two centuries? 4-5 tops. Take the era between 1100-1300 and you can count at least twice that. Total war is a dead practice in modern times. WW2 is the last of its kind.

Total war was common enough in medieval Europe. Many wars in Europe were on a big enough scale to be classified as total war.

Modern era cases of total war include: The French Revolutionary wars, The Taiping Rebellion, the American civil war, World war 1, World war 2, During the first part of the showa era of Imperial Japan introducing string policies for total war effort against china.

Ancient and Medieval cases Peloponnesian War, war for unification of China, Gengis Khan 13th century mongols, The German Peasants War of 1524-25, French Wars of Religion, The Elizabethan wars in Ireland, Desmond Wars, Nine Years War, The Thirty Years war, and the Barbarian invasion of rome. Thats 10 cases I can think of.. So 4 more then medieval era.. Mind you theres probably more examples of both that ive left out but the gap isn't extreme

[EmperorSahlertz]

XxDeonxX wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Total war is far more commonplace in modern times then Ancient and medieval times but it wasn't out of the ordinary in ancient and medieval times. However not out of the ordinary and commonplace can be considered two different things. So interpret it how you wish.

Total war wasn't really commonplace in Europe but mainly in Asia, The Mongols and their invasions of china were common practice of total war. In fact many wars the Mongols involved themselves in involved total war.

Total War was not to common in Europe though, only really being used in the Peloponnesian War and The German Peasent war and French religious wars... I guess the barbarian invasion of rome is total war as well, but that was due to extreme desperation on Romes part

How many cases of total war have we had in the last two centuries? 4-5 tops. Take the era between 1100-1300 and you can count at least twice that. Total war is a dead practice in modern times. WW2 is the last of its kind.

Total war was common enough in medieval Europe. Many wars in Europe were on a big enough scale to be classified as total war.

Modern era cases of total war include: The French Revolutionary wars, The Taiping Rebellion, the American civil war, World war 1, World war 2, During the first part of the showa era of Imperial Japan introducing string policies for total war effort against china.

Ancient and Medieval cases Peloponnesian War, war for unification of China, Gengis Khan 13th century mongols, The German Peasants War of 1524-25, French Wars of Religion, The Elizabethan wars in Ireland, Desmond Wars, Nine Years War, The Thirty Years war, and the Barbarian invasion of rome. Thats 10 cases I can think of.. So 4 more then medieval era.. Mind you theres probably more examples of both that ive left out but the gap isn't extreme

You bend the rules. I said in the last two centuries.
But the point is that total war has died out. We won't ever experience a case of total war again. Or.. We might actually experience one, but only just one.