1019 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

Actually this is wrong.  Ghengis Khan did not practice total war.  He used exactly as much force as was necessary to coquer a city or state.  Of course if you resisted his definition of necessary force was fairly astingint, but it's a fact that the Mongol Hordes more than perhaps anything else was responsible for the spread of Islam to the furthest corners of Asia.  Why?  Because he DID NOT commit cultural genocide.  If you were a lord of a city and you surrendered, you almost invariably got to keep being that lord of the city under new management.

Ghengis Khan only slaughtered those who resisted and tried to keep it to a minimum.  That was WHY he was so brutal to those who resisted...to serve as an object lesson for future cities to make actual warfare less necessary.

Fact is that Ghengis Khan could have cared less about the cutlures he coquered as long as they nodded their heads to him, and that's a far cry from total war.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

XxDeonxX wrote...
Nah actually Ghengis Khan and the mongols were one of the primary practicers of the art of total war if not THE primary practicers of it in the non-modern era.

"The military forces of Genghis Khan slaughtered whole populations and destroyed any city that resisted during the invasions of Khwarezmid Empire, Kievan Rus', Baghdad, China, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary and northern Iran. During the sack of Baghdad in 1258 between 100,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed in the violence. Total war created the Mongol Empire which, by the death of Genghis Khan, would be the largest contiguous empire in history."

The key words in that is "IF THEY RESISTED".  If they didn't (and sometimes even if it was just a minor skirmish to start), then the culture was taken intact and usually with the same people in charge.  Ghengis Khan never bothered and never cared about other cultures as long as he got to be in charge.  As such what he did was a far cry from total war.  It was basically brutal but effective PR to reduce war as much as possible (for him anyway).

-Polaris

[Augustei]

Ghengis Khan DID practice total war, thats why people write books about Ghengis Khans acts of total war, Thats why Ghengis Khan is in a game titled Total War. Thats why Im able to quote references that speak of how Ghengis Khan used total war.. And "IF THEY RESISTED" how many people do you truly think didn't resist? How often are people willing to tolerate foreign invaders?



"During the Middle Ages, the Mongols in the 13th century practised total war. The military forces of Genghis Khan slaughtered whole populations and destroyed any city that resisted during the invasions of Khwarezmid Empire, Kievan Rus', Baghdad, China, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary and northern Iran."



Now Considering that most of those countries commanded strong armies, why would they simply resist anyway?

And come to think of it, what does a peoples will to not resist foreign occupation have to do with total war?

Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival's capacity for resistance which is what the mongols did

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris, do you even know what total war means? It appears to me, that you are of the belief that it only revovles around utter destruction of an enemy. But there are many more things to it. It is also about forging your entire country into one big war machine. And also simply about the scale of the warfare.



I would also like to point out that the Mongols made a habit of burning and/or looting libraries in particular. You know why? Because it was the heart of cultures back then. Burn their knowledge, burn their culture. He destroyed cultures without killing their people.

[Beerfish]

So, a nice guy mage by the name of Anders escapes from the circle multiple times, he wants freedom and doesn't want to be controlled by the circle or the Templars. During the time of his freedom he invites what looks to be a benevolent spirit by the name of justice to share his body. Now his hate for the circle has correupted the formerly benevolent spirit into a spirit of vengance.

Yet another in the long list of reasons why mages must be controlled, just another reason why even the mage with good intents can become very dangerous. Long live the Chantry! Long live the Templars!!! Save us from these fiends!

Modifié par Beerfish, 09 février 2011 - 12:45 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Beerfish wrote...

So, a nice guy mage by the name of Anders escapes from the circle multiple times, he wants freedom and doesn't want to be controlled by the circle or the Templars. During the time of his freedom he invites what looks to be a benevolent spirit by the name of justice to share his body. Now his hate for the circle has correupted the formerly benevolent spirit into a spirit of vengance.

Yet another in the long list of reasons why mages must be controlled, just another reason why even the mage with good intents can become very dangerous. Long live the Chantry! Long live the Templars!!! Save us from these fiends!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Lob and Polaris are going to blame this one on the Chantry aswell.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Lob and Polaris are going to blame this one on the Chantry aswell.

So says the person who referred to mages as "property of the Chantry."

Beerfish wrote...

So, a nice guy mage by the name of Anders escapes from the circle multiple times, he wants freedom and doesn't want to be controlled by the circle or the Templars. During the time of his freedom he invites what looks to be a benevolent spirit by the name of justice to share his body. Now his hate for the circle has correupted the formerly benevolent spirit into a spirit of vengance.

Yet another in the long list of reasons why mages must be controlled, just another reason why even the mage with good intents can become very dangerous. Long live the Chantry! Long live the Templars!!! Save us from these fiends!

Another long reason why mages should be dehumanized and oppressed by a fanatical order that has armored drug addicts watching over innocent people? I don't see it. D'Sims was an innocent person who was killed by templars because they thought he was a mage, Aneirin was nearly killed because they accused him of being a maleficar at fourteen, and Morrigan has a bounty on her because the templars think she's a blood mage. All I notice from your example is a silly "what if Anders became a spirit of vengence," which makes no sense as we see how Wynne is fully in control of her own cognitive abilities when she bonds with a Spirit of Faith. Maybe you should try making some sense the next time you go on an anti-mage rant.

[Riona45]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Lob and Polaris are going to blame this one on the Chantry aswell.

Hope it breaks.

[LobselVith8]

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.

Because the Dalish elves refused to convert to the Chantry of Andraste? Yeah, I can see wanting to retain their culture and traditions makes them a threat that needs to be eliminated.  We don't know what happened, but Orlais does have a history of taking territory and getting into disputes over territory. We have the situation with Nevarra and the third attempt to take Ferelden (through the marriage of Celene I to Cailan) to provide examples that the Dales isn't an isolated incident. The Dalish codex tells us that they refused to convert and kicked out the missionaries, who were replaced by armored drug addicts coming into the Dales. How is this sufficient reason for the Chantry to attack them with the military arm of their organization? Refusing to bend knee to the Chantry isn't a sufficient reason for the Chantry to sack the Dales or make the elven religion illegal.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

You mean the threat of a people who claim that the Chantry sent in templars to the Dales to force conversion? Against a nation that has a history of taking over territory and its own history is built on the conquest of other nations through Exalted Marches? We know the Dalish didn't intervene with humanity because they wanted to reclaim the lost glory of Arlathan and regain their immortality, which they believe was lost because of contact with humanity. I fail to see how their isolation from a race that enslaved them for generations makes them such a threat.

[Beren082]

I love you guys. someone starts a thread on the chantry, and there's immediately 20+ pages of discussion about the socio-economic challenges and issues of Thedas.



You all truly are my nerd brethren.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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?

Because they call for aid in their defense...nothing else.
If you are under attack by someone and call me to help (you just want me to get the guy off of you), but I end up killing the guy...is it your fault?

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.

Not adressing the issue.

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.

Again, lack of reading comprehension (why am I not surprised?)

It's not matter of Chantry having no influence, but not having enough of it, or risking hostiltiy with Andrastian nations.
If hte kings of 4 other nations answer the call and decide to wipe out the Dalish and take their territory, do you really think they'd just abandon their ideas because the Divine doesn't like it?

Chantry has power, but so do kings.

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.

IF it is the correct one. That is one big if.

Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of modern law system (and ironicly, you apply modern moral standards to the Cahtnry, but ignore this).
Neither you nor Ian can actually prove anything, yet are 100% convinced in the "crimes" of the Cahntry and parade your theories as truth.

And this is the reason I aruge on this board. Not because I adore the Chantry. Not because I think they're perfect.
But because I hate extremists that argue like you do, and I enjoy poking holes in their illusions.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 09 février 2011 - 08:54 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

Proof the Dalish were willing to surrender?
Proof that surrender wasn't offered?

Oh yeah...again, you got none.

EDIT:
Total War is you significantly outnumber and outgun your enemy is not a matter of long years. Total was is destrying the country. The leadership/government.
Genocide is total elimination of people. Whihc didn't happen, givne that we see so many Dalish clans roam around.

[Eclipse_9990]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Proof the Dalish were willing to surrender?
Proof that surrender wasn't offered?

Oh yeah...again, you got none.

EDIT:
Total War is you significantly outnumber and outgun your enemy is not a matter of long years. Total was is destrying the country. The leadership/government.
Genocide is total elimination of people. Whihc didn't happen, givne that we see so many Dalish clans roam around.

Surrender why should the Dalish have to surrender? Because they wouldnt worship the Chantry's stupid god? I don't know how you can support invading, and turning people against a certain race because they don't have the same religion you do. 

Damn Chantry apologists.. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 09 février 2011 - 09:04 .

[Beren082]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Proof the Dalish were willing to surrender?
Proof that surrender wasn't offered?

Oh yeah...again, you got none.

EDIT:
Total War is you significantly outnumber and outgun your enemy is not a matter of long years. Total was is destrying the country. The leadership/government.
Genocide is total elimination of people. Whihc didn't happen, givne that we see so many Dalish clans roam around.

Wait, because some survived, it wasn't genocide?

So I guess the Darkspawn were completely within reason when they destroyed Lothering, because some people made it out?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Proof the Dalish were willing to surrender?
Proof that surrender wasn't offered?

Oh yeah...again, you got none.

EDIT:
Total War is you significantly outnumber and outgun your enemy is not a matter of long years. Total was is destrying the country. The leadership/government.
Genocide is total elimination of people. Whihc didn't happen, givne that we see so many Dalish clans roam around.

Surrender why should the Dalish have to surrender? Because they wouldnt worship the Chantry's stupid god? I don't know how you can support invading, and turning people against a certain race because they don't have the same religion you do. 

Damn Chantry apologists..

I await proof before condeming the Chantry. Remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not "inocent untill assumed guilty".

And why should they surrender? Why should any side that's loosing a war surrender? To avoid destruction of course.

And Chantry apologist? I can see why countering extremist claims may make it seem like I hold the opposite oppinion, but that is not the case.

You basicly got people screaming "Chantry is evil! It is the truth. I have evidence!"
Then I come along (and a few other reasonalbe people) and look at the "evidence" and say - "That's not real proof. You've got theories, not facts."

Alas, in their eyes it turns into holding the other extreeme camp.
So it might be wise for you to learn the subtle difference betwen saying "I am right! X is the truth!" (common extremist position) and "You are wrong, you've got no proof" (which is NOT implying that my version is the correct one).

Beren082 wrote...
Wait, because some survived, it wasn't genocide?

So I guess the Darkspawn were completely within reason when they destroyed Lothering, because some people made it out?

And you think it's genocide because...?

Not even the Dalish codex claims the armies were trying to exterminate all elves.
In fact, if the attackers (several kingdoms) really were after genocide, there would be no elves left. They cannot really hide among humans, now can they?
And yet we know there are many dalish clans and even more city elves. If there was a genocide attempt, then it was laughably pathetic.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 09 février 2011 - 09:35 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Lob and Polaris are going to blame this one on the Chantry aswell.

So says the person who referred to mages as "property of the Chantry."

Heh... Nice try at getting some pathos from other readers. Nice try. But if you whip out that quote you have of me, and actually read it this time (gasp!). You will notice I never said that mages were property. I said that the Cirlces (as institutions) are property of the Chantry. But I guess you wouldn't know the difference.

LobselVith8 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.

Because the Dalish elves refused to convert to the Chantry of Andraste? Yeah, I can see wanting to retain their culture and traditions makes them a threat that needs to be eliminated.  We don't know what happened, but Orlais does have a history of taking territory and getting into disputes over territory. We have the situation with Nevarra and the third attempt to take Ferelden (through the marriage of Celene I to Cailan) to provide examples that the Dales isn't an isolated incident. The Dalish codex tells us that they refused to convert and kicked out the missionaries, who were replaced by armored drug addicts coming into the Dales. How is this sufficient reason for the Chantry to attack them with the military arm of their organization? Refusing to bend knee to the Chantry isn't a sufficient reason for the Chantry to sack the Dales or make the elven religion illegal.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

You mean the threat of a people who claim that the Chantry sent in templars to the Dales to force conversion? Against a nation that has a history of taking over territory and its own history is built on the conquest of other nations through Exalted Marches? We know the Dalish didn't intervene with humanity because they wanted to reclaim the lost glory of Arlathan and regain their immortality, which they believe was lost because of contact with humanity. I fail to see how their isolation from a race that enslaved them for generations makes them such a threat.

No. I'm talking about the threat from a nation which refused to come to the aid of Orlais during a Blight, which refused to trade, which refused missionaries to preach their faith peacefully, and of a threat which sacked Val Royaux. The Dales were a major threat to Orlais.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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?

Because they call for aid in their defense...nothing else.
If you are under attack by someone and call me to help (you just want me to get the guy off of you), but I end up killing the guy...is it your fault?

You have no prove they ever asked the Dalish for aid during the Second Blight. None. You're using speculation as proof again.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Not adressing the issue.

It is addressing the issue. They called for attacks against the Dales. If it started because the Dalish refused to convert to their religion and sent in templars to force the issue (as the Dalish codex claims), the Chantry clearly aren't the good guys here.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Again, lack of reading comprehension (why am I not surprised?)

It's not matter of Chantry having no influence, but not having enough of it, or risking hostiltiy with Andrastian nations.
If hte kings of 4 other nations answer the call and decide to wipe out the Dalish and take their territory, do you really think they'd just abandon their ideas because the Divine doesn't like it?

Chantry has power, but so do kings.

If the Chantry leads an Exalted March against the Dales, why claim they have no power over the other nations they're demanding aid them against an enemy? Again, your condescending comments do little to support your views.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

IF it is the correct one. That is one big if.

Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of modern law system (and ironicly, you apply modern moral standards to the Cahtnry, but ignore this).
Neither you nor Ian can actually prove anything, yet are 100% convinced in the "crimes" of the Cahntry and parade your theories as truth.

And this is the reason I aruge on this board. Not because I adore the Chantry. Not because I think they're perfect.
But because I hate extremists that argue like you do, and I enjoy poking holes in their illusions.

It seems you're the one who lacks the ability to read here, Lotion. I clearly worded it to show if the Chantry started the war because of what the Dalish claim, I didn't post it as the truth since we're never provided with the answer of which version is the accurate one. And you're an extremist for the Chantry, so I fail to see why you claim otherwise.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Proof the Dalish were willing to surrender?
Proof that surrender wasn't offered?

Oh yeah...again, you got none.

So your idea of winning the argument is to ask ridiculous questions that ignore that an Exalted March was called on the elves, and their nation was sacked, which lead to the elves being homeless or forced into ghettos where their religion was made illegal? Why should the Dalish surrender if their claims that the Chantry was trying to force the elves to convert is accurate? Why should they give up their religion and their beliefs because the humans say so?

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Lob and Polaris are going to blame this one on the Chantry aswell.

So says the person who referred to mages as "property of the Chantry."

Heh... Nice try at getting some pathos from other readers. Nice try. But if you whip out that quote you have of me, and actually read it this time (gasp!). You will notice I never said that mages were property. I said that the Cirlces (as institutions) are property of the Chantry. But I guess you wouldn't know the difference.

Getting some pathos? I'm pointing out how you're pro-Chantry but making condescending comments because people take an opposing view. You and Lotion clearly take the pro-Chantry stand every time, so I don't see the need for condescending remarks simply because others take an opposing view. And you said if the ruler emancipated mages, it would be theft of Chantry property; try to clean it up all you want, but it's still a very cruel perception to take of human life.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean the threat of a people who claim that the Chantry sent in templars to the Dales to force conversion? Against a nation that has a history of taking over territory and its own history is built on the conquest of other nations through Exalted Marches? We know the Dalish didn't intervene with humanity because they wanted to reclaim the lost glory of Arlathan and regain their immortality, which they believe was lost because of contact with humanity. I fail to see how their isolation from a race that enslaved them for generations makes them such a threat.

No. I'm talking about the threat from a nation which refused to come to the aid of Orlais during a Blight, which refused to trade, which refused missionaries to preach their faith peacefully, and of a threat which sacked Val Royaux. The Dales were a major threat to Orlais.

Speculation does not equal facts. You cannot use speculation as facts. There's no evidence Orlais requested aid from the elves during the Second Blight. None at all. The Dalish also didn't need to trade with Orlais or allow in missionaries or templars. You failed to prove why the Dalish are a threat to Orlais when they wanted to be left alone to reclaim their lost history and lore.

[Augustei]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Proof the Dalish were willing to surrender?
Proof that surrender wasn't offered?

Oh yeah...again, you got none.

EDIT:
Total War is you significantly outnumber and outgun your enemy is not a matter of long years. Total was is destrying the country. The leadership/government.
Genocide is total elimination of people. Whihc didn't happen, givne that we see so many Dalish clans roam around.

Surrender why should the Dalish have to surrender? Because they wouldnt worship the Chantry's stupid god? I don't know how you can support invading, and turning people against a certain race because they don't have the same religion you do. 

Damn Chantry apologists.. 

There are many more Possible reasons to the war then that.. In fact I believe there is at least one if not more reasons to the war. Even the Dalish Storyteller in his camp says that.

There are more Possible reasons to why the war was started beyond anything religious. Whether they are true or not is the big question. But yeah, like I said the Dalish Storyteller believes that the war was started beyond what reasons we know.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I await proof before condeming the Chantry. Remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not "inocent untill assumed guilty".

Which is why you always take the side of the Chantry, I see....

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And why should they surrender? Why should any side that's loosing a war surrender? To avoid destruction of course.

And Chantry apologist? I can see why countering extremist claims may make it seem like I hold the opposite oppinion, but that is not the case.

If the Dalish claims are true that it was about their refusal to convert to human religion, then the war shouldn't have happened in the first place; Orlais never should have tried to force the elves to convert with their templars.

Also, you've sided with the Chantry for over a year now, Lotion. I don't see why you pretend otherwise.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You basicly got people screaming "Chantry is evil! It is the truth. I have evidence!"

No, people disagree with what the Chantry does, and you flame and troll them for it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Then I come along (and a few other reasonalbe people) and look at the "evidence" and say - "That's not real proof. You've got theories, not facts."

Like when you called me stupid because I refused to agree with you?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Alas, in their eyes it turns into holding the other extreeme camp.
So it might be wise for you to learn the subtle difference betwen saying "I am right! X is the truth!" (common extremist position) and "You are wrong, you've got no proof" (which is NOT implying that my version is the correct one).

You have no proof that the Chantry is right in many of the arguments, Lotion, especially in the case of the mages. It's never stopped you from supporting them before.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not even the Dalish codex claims the armies were trying to exterminate all elves.
In fact, if the attackers (several kingdoms) really were after genocide, there would be no elves left. They cannot really hide among humans, now can they?
And yet we know there are many dalish clans and even more city elves. If there was a genocide attempt, then it was laughably pathetic.

The reason the Dalish clans are so small and seperate is to prevent any attempts at genocide; this is explained by the Messenger at the Dalish camp. Clearly, they're aware that it's a possibility.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You have no prove they ever asked the Dalish for aid during the Second Blight. None. You're using speculation as proof again.

I think he was talking about the destruction of the Dales being done by the commander on the field, and The chantry not being able to be held accountable for the field commander of X random country being held accountable. Not the second Blight

EDIT: Damn this is annoying, the close quote wont close the damn quote. 
EDIT again lol: Sweet, suddenly decided to work

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 09 février 2011 - 01:50 .

[Last Vizard]

The chantry is a force acting against the evolution of Mankind, they FEAR the maker given powers that mages have so they put them in towers, isolated from the rest of the world and therefore preventing them from passing on that genetic material to the next generations..... the simple fact that mages are still being born means that it is the destiny of Mankind to become living Gods.

pretty much Raymond E. Feist's Valheru.

Only a weak minded fool would dance with devils.

[Augustei]

Last Vizard wrote...

The chantry is a force acting against the evolution of Mankind, they FEAR the maker given powers that mages have so they put them in towers, isolated from the rest of the world and therefore preventing them from passing on that genetic material to the next generations..... the simple fact that mages are still being born means that it is the destiny of Mankind to become living Gods.
pretty much Raymond E. Feist's Valheru.
Only a weak minded fool would dance with devils.

Does this suggest that mages are in a higher stage of evolution than non-mages? lol

the destiny of Mankind to become living Gods.

Hmm where have I heard this before.. Oh yeah, The Tevinter Imperium took this approach.. They viewed mages as the superior beings, they saw it as the destiny of mankind to become living gods.. Worked out well for them so we should apply it to... Oh wait It didn't work out for them. They were screwed over. Blood magic was commonly practiced, blood ran through the streets of Minrathous as a Massive sacrifice was made to enter the golden city. Thus darkspawn came to be. and the greatest empire Thedas had seen came crumbling to ruin =D

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 09 février 2011 - 02:48 .

[Ziggeh]

Last Vizard wrote...

The chantry is a force acting against the evolution of Mankind

What evidence do we have that he humans in thedas evolved?

[Elsariel]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Hmm where have I heard this before.. Oh yeah, The Tevinter Imperium took this approach.. They viewed mages as the superior beings, they saw it as the destiny of mankind to become living gods.. Worked out well for them so we should apply it to... Oh wait It didn't work out for them. They were screwed over. Blood magic was commonly practiced, blood ran through the streets of Minrathous as a Massive sacrifice was made to enter the golden city. Thus darkspawn came to be. and the greatest empire Thedas had seen came crumbling to ruin =D

I think learning from past mistakes can prevent future civilizations from making them again.  Mages can still be highly valued in society as long as they are checked.  And not checked in the way the Chantry likes to check them.