4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I blame the city elves just as much. If they left the alienages and sought out the Dalish they'd have a much better life. Pol did, until his brain turned to goo due to the Keeper's poisonous words and he thought he'd be safer with a mad Varterral than around Merrill.

All they have to do is abandon their faith and spit on the culture of their fathers and grandfathers.

[Lewie]

Their resentment isn't exactly misplaced they are treated like scum in kirkwall. Insults are wrong on both sides though knife-ear does have a nasty tone to it. Shemlen means 'quick children', im not even sure what that means only that it means human.

Modifié par louise101, 17 mai 2011 - 02:06 .

[GavrielKay]

louise101 wrote...

Their resentment isn't exactly misplaced they are treated like scum in kirkwall. Insults are wrong on both sides though knife-ear does have a nasty tone to it. Shemlen means 'quick children', im not even sure what that means only that it means human.

It's probably used to contrast the elven vs. human life span back in the days when elves were supposed to be immortal. It's been a while since I looked at the lore, but I think the elves believe they lost their immortality by interbreeding and associating too much with humans.

[Ryzaki]

Plaintiff wrote...

I feel sorry for the Dalish. Really, I do.

But ****ing hell, their passive-aggressive bull**** sure makes it difficult.

This. 

I start feeling for them and then I want to nuke them all from f***ing orbit. 

[IanPolaris]

Ryzaki wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I feel sorry for the Dalish. Really, I do.

But ****ing hell, their passive-aggressive bull**** sure makes it difficult.

This. 

I start feeling for them and then I want to nuke them all from f***ing orbit. 

Oh I agree that the Dalish are their own worst enemies at times.  The Dalish haven't figured out (even after all that's happened to them) that the world has passed them by, and if they don't wake up soon, there won't be any meaningful numbers of Dalish (or Elves in general since they breed out) in less than a thousand years.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

IanPolaris wrote...

Oh I agree that the Dalish are their own worst enemies at times.  The Dalish haven't figured out (even after all that's happened to them) that the world has passed them by, and if they don't wake up soon, there won't be any meaningful numbers of Dalish (or Elves in general since they breed out) in less than a thousand years.

-Polaris

Do we have any idea how many Dalish are left as of DA2?  They might be doomed already unless the city elves can be reintegrated to invigorate the gene pool.

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

Their resentment isn't exactly misplaced they are treated like scum in kirkwall. Insults are wrong on both sides though knife-ear does have a nasty tone to it. Shemlen means 'quick children', im not even sure what that means only that it means human.

It refers to their short lifespan.  The term originally came from the supposedly immortal elves (more likely elves using blood magic to extend their lives like Avernus, but that's another story) who thought human lives were so short as to require a slur.  Since elves have lost their immortality and go out of their way to get themselves killed by being dumbasses, they would count as shemlen too.  Unfortunately, a fact that's lost on them.

Also, beings that you've defended fictional genocide, you'll have to forgive me if I scoff at your condemnation of fictional racism.

[Silfren]

Getting to this a little late...

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I think the thing is that there truly is no real world example that is truly analogous.  Even the argument you pose about people's intelligence being the catalyst for the creation of mass-kill weaponry.  It's as close as we're likely to get because real world human beings cannot cause fires or explosions or insta-freezes with the power of their mind and well-placed hand gestures.  But it's still not an ever-present, immediate risk in the same way that a next-door-neighbor mage would be.  And yes, I know that a lot of people would scoff at that idea, what with so many nations waging pissing contests against one another.  But let's face it: how many of us really go about our daily lives with the threat of nuclear annihilation on our minds, even though it is a decided possibility? The only example that is truly a parallel is just another fictitious example: the mutants of Marvel Comics.  And even that's not precisely parallel because of the general lock of demonic attraction.

Actually, it does give the ever-present, immediate risk because it gives every psychopath weapons as potent as blood magic.  Just look at all the people shooting up their schools or workplaces.  The demonic thing is true, but we don't really know how big a risk it is.  There's no scientific data on the rate of demonic influence or possession in various situations.  We can only guess.  And not even educated guesses, we have to blindly guess.

As much as I understand where you're coming from, I don't think there's a clear comparison to be made there.  Someone having the intelligence to create weaponry that can cause mass levels of die-off is not quite the same thing as a person having the ability to cause spontaneous destruction through the power of their mind alone.  For one thing, a person with the intelligence still has to have access to materials, etc.  But the thing about mages that Bioware is attempting to illustrate is that they have the potential to cause massive harm without ever intending to do so. 

I don't really know how to better articulate it.  I do realize what your point is, but the two situations aren't really equivalent.  They can both cause the same level of destruction, yes, but how they arrive at that point is different.  I think that's Gaider's point, actually.  A person who has the intelligence and the willingness to create a bomb that could wipe out an entire continent is still not quite as dangerous as a person who could trigger a fire by simply getting over-emotional or having a massive headache, or who could find themselves housing a demon if they sneezed during a trip to the Fade.  Which are a bit ridiculous, because you're right, we don't actually have objective evidence of just how at-risk mages are for either potential.  As for ever-present, immediate risk, I was referring more to people's general perception, not actuality of risk.  I do think it's reasonble to state that people who believed such a person as a mage, under the above description, was living next door would be a lot more anxious about that than some nebulous threat that someone, somewhere, could be building a planet-killing bomb.  People are always more acutely focused on threats in their own backyard rather than half a world away, even when that threat is largely in their own imagination and the one on the other side of the world is more tangible.

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
....And I am compelled to say that I think it supports my original interpretation.  I think all that DG is trying to say here is that the inherent potential danger of mages makes them "innocent" in the same way that a hot electrical wire is innocent.  In other words he's trying to make a general statement to the innate danger they carry.  Okay, that's a very crude analogy, but there it is.  I see nothing whatsoever that suggests he's trying to say that mages are automatically evil and guilty.  He's just trying to re-iterate the lore point about mages carrying a potential for danger that non-mages of Thedas simply don't.  Just like an electrical wire lying on the ground that doesn't appear to be hot...it'll kill you just as dead.  Yes, crude, but I fail to see any evil in DG's statement.

Actually I have to agree with IanPolaris on it.  Perhaps not to the same degree, but I certainly lost a good deal of respect for DG seeing him misuse the word "innocent" like that.  That's exactly why I got into it with Beerfish originally.  Being dangerous has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.  I also have to wonder why he would get into that debate.  How many stupid debates take place around here?  Why get into that one?

Anyway, if his entire point was to show us the other side of it then he failed hard because we see that the system in place only makes things worse by encouraging possession and blood magic.

Oh, agreed it was a very clumsy way of stating what I still am quite sure was his intended point.  But maybe it's just that I see people "mis-use" words all the time...or the fact that, again, words are not and can't be limited to their strict denotations as per the dictionary, so I always find it a little silly and reaching to take someone to task for something like that.  He could have found a much better way to phrase it, but I don't think he was quite that off-base.  Also, the man was writing a forum post, not a dissertation, so I don't think he felt the need to put that much effort into his post; nor do I think he expected people to nitpick and dissect his choice of wording so brutally.

For me, the thing is that, okay, he probably could have worded his post better so that people wouldn't misunderstand him.  But looking for darker motives and seeing a conspiracy to manipulate people's moral beliefs...that just seems to me like projecting your (general you, not directed at anyone) own need to see conspiracy where there isn't any.

[TEWR]

Wulfram wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I blame the city elves just as much. If they left the alienages and sought out the Dalish they'd have a much better life. Pol did, until his brain turned to goo due to the Keeper's poisonous words and he thought he'd be safer with a mad Varterral than around Merrill.

All they have to do is abandon their faith and spit on the culture of their fathers and grandfathers.

All they really have to do is spit on a faith that they and their ancestors were forced to believe in after being conquered and return to the true culture of their ancestors.


I think that's what you meant to say.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

true. Humans did beat them. However unfairly, unjustified, and unprovoked it may have been; they need to realize that they are not the best warriors on Thedas. If a human offers help, they take it as a sign that the Dalish aren't good fighters in their own right.

But humanity also needs to treat the elves like people too, which rarely if ever has happened in Thedas.

Er, not exactly.  You can be the best warriors on the planet and still be beaten to a pulp if the other side has greater technology, though I suppose this could lead to a discussion on whether being a good warrior includes or doesn't include one's weapons technology.  And for one group to offer to help another doesn't have to automatically mean they view that people as inferior fighters.  Allying yourself with another group for mutual benefit is an old tradition.  It doesn't mean "LULZ WITHOUT US YOU DIE."

I also have to take issue with the assertion a page back from this that being defeated by another culture is a sign of your own culture's weakness.

The Native peoples of the Americas are the best example I'm familiar with, though I'm not sure they'd appreciate being used as the poster child for example-making any more than the Jewish people as a whole do.  Many indigenous nations of the Americas were superb warriors.  The greatest advantage that European settlers had over them was sheer numbers.  Their--well, our--technology was superior, certainly, but it wasn't the deciding factor in the decimation of the Native peoples.  Disease takes the medal for that dubious honor.  

Sounds more like a case of cultural bias, honestly, to assert that inherent weakness was the cause.

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I will not speak for society in general. I think it's generally wrong to use deliberately insulting racial epithets towards anyone or any race, real or fictional. That's just my personal opinion on the matter.

I'm rather surprised you'd fall into that category. You were the one that posted the Alain theory, weren't you? The whole thing pretty much hinged on the understanding of the fact that people are hardwired to be racist to some degree. It's just what's done on a conscious level to actual people that matters. There are no elves. Therefor saying "knife-ear" hurts no one. Therefor it's not "wrong." It really is just that simple.

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, it's not wrong as such, but why is it wronger to be uncomfortable with it?

Not wrong, just politically correct to a ridiculous degree. Condemning a slur against a group that a) doesn't actually exist, is remarkably racist themselves, is one step shy of saying we should call darkspawn "Light-challenged Thedasians." Particularly asinine when you consider that one of the people complaining about a slur against one DA minority was earlier on defending genocide against another. So it's okay to systematically murder a fictional people, but not to insult them? I've got to right this crap down.

*rubs temples* Onto a more intelligent topic. Which would be... anything, really.

I'm still trying to figure this one out.  The only reason I could think of for someone to take you to task for that would be if they actually believed that a tongue-in-cheek reference of "knife-ear" was an indicator of actual racism on your part toward real-world people.  But that would just be ridiculous in itself--people in these forums call elves knife-ears all the time, without ever meaning that they seriously think of the elves as such.  'Cuz, you know, they're semi-roleplaying contempt for fictional beings.  It's not meant to be taken seriously.  I mean, I go to considerable length in making a conscious effort to be as anti-racist as possible, but I see "OMG I hate those stupid knife-ears" for exactly what it is.  It's about as serious as when people refer to Anders jenga-ing the Chantry as "*sniff*...I'm so proud."

Oh, wait...

[Wulfram]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

All they really have to do is spit on a faith that they and their ancestors were forced to believe in after being conquered and return to the true culture of their ancestors.


I think that's what you meant to say.

Pretty much everyone's faith is something that at least some of thier ancestors were forced into converting to.

The faith of their distant ancestors is irrelevent.  Nowadays, they are Andrasteans, as were their fathers and grandfathers.  Abandoning that faith merely for the prospect of a better life would be cowardly and contemptible.

Though I also don't think that them joining the Dalish en masse would work, anyway.  Incorporating a few new members into the clan is one thing, but there's a practical limit to the size of a clan, and city elves would be pretty much without any useful skills when they joined.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

true. Humans did beat them. However unfairly, unjustified, and unprovoked it may have been; they need to realize that they are not the best warriors on Thedas. If a human offers help, they take it as a sign that the Dalish aren't good fighters in their own right.

But humanity also needs to treat the elves like people too, which rarely if ever has happened in Thedas.

Er, not exactly.  You can be the best warriors on the planet and still be beaten to a pulp if the other side has greater technology, though I suppose this could lead to a discussion on whether being a good warrior includes or doesn't include one's weapons technology.  And for one group to offer to help another doesn't have to automatically mean they view that people as inferior fighters.  Allying yourself with another group for mutual benefit is an old tradition.  It doesn't mean "LULZ WITHOUT US YOU DIE."

I also have to take issue with the assertion a page back from this that being defeated by another culture is a sign of your own culture's weakness.

The Native peoples of the Americas are the best example I'm familiar with, though I'm not sure they'd appreciate being used as the poster child for example-making any more than the Jewish people as a whole do.  Many indigenous nations of the Americas were superb warriors.  The greatest advantage that European settlers had over them was sheer numbers.  Their--well, our--technology was superior, certainly, but it wasn't the deciding factor in the decimation of the Native peoples.  Disease takes the medal for that dubious honor.  

Sounds more like a case of cultural bias, honestly, to assert that inherent weakness was the cause.

I'm saying the Dalish take offense at anyone offering to help. I'm not saying that humans or dwarves view the elves as inferior fighters, but that the Dalish are too proud to accept help without thinking that the offering party is an a-hole to them. And Arlathan was a center of great knowledge, but Tevinter had dragons, magic, and demons at their disposal which made it harder.

[TEWR]

Wulfram wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

All they really have to do is spit on a faith that they and their ancestors were forced to believe in after being conquered and return to the true culture of their ancestors.


I think that's what you meant to say.

Pretty much everyone's faith is something that at least some of thier ancestors were forced into converting to.

The faith of their distant ancestors is irrelevent.  Nowadays, they are Andrasteans, as were their fathers and grandfathers.  Abandoning that faith merely for the prospect of a better life would be cowardly and contemptible.

Though I also don't think that them joining the Dalish en masse would work, anyway.  Incorporating a few new members into the clan is one thing, but there's a practical limit to the size of a clan, and city elves would be pretty much without any useful skills when they joined.

I don't think we've ever been given information on how many elves were allowed in one clan, save for 1 Keeper and 1 First.


Also, IIRC, Native Americans were allowed to believe in whatever they wanted. So it's not "everyone's faith" so much as it is "everyone's faith in these current times". And even then, not everyone chooses to believe what they are told to. People believe what they agree with/like more. It's hardly cowardly to embrace the religion of your ancestors just because you now worship a different faith.

[Wulfram]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't think we've ever been given information on how many elves were allowed in one clan, save for 1 Keeper and 1 First.

Practically, they can't be all that big.  They're supporting themselves on hunting and gathering, with a limited amount of trading, and they're existing on the fringes of human society rather than on their own lands.  They need to be able to leave quickly and to hide if things go wrong.

Also, IIRC, Native Americans were allowed to believe in whatever they wanted. So it's not "everyone's faith" so much as it is "everyone's faith in these current times". And even then, not everyone chooses to believe what they are told to. People believe what they agree with/like more. It's hardly cowardly to embrace the religion of your ancestors just because you now worship a different faith.

If you actually came to believe in the Dalish religion rather than Andrasteanism, then obviously joining the Dalish would make sense.  But most people aren't going to do that - particularly when the Dalish themselves are little more than a myth, as in the Denerim Alienage - and for them there is no honest option except to stay in the alienages.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I blame the city elves just as much. If they left the alienages and sought out the Dalish they'd have a much better life. Pol did, until his brain turned to goo due to the Keeper's poisonous words and he thought he'd be safer with a mad Varterral than around Merrill.

Problem being is that Origins established that elves living in city alienages have internalized the generalized human--and often Chantry-led--racism against the Dalish.  That a few individuals manage to overcome that sort of generational stigmatism doesn't mean that those who don't are innately inferior. 

Yet another example for which we have tons of real world counterparts.  You don't blame the minority population for internalizing the dominant group's oppressive dogma after a number of generations of being steeped in it.

[TEWR]

I'd say a Dalish clan would be somewhere between 75-140 elves. That might be too much, but it's just my own personal guess.


And don't you think it's also cowardly to live a life where you're treated as a second-class citizen all the time, when a better option is somewhere out there? The somewhere is the problem sure, but it's not all that hard to find the Dalish. Just go to where nature is abundant.

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Their resentment isn't exactly misplaced they are treated like scum in kirkwall. Insults are wrong on both sides though knife-ear does have a nasty tone to it. Shemlen means 'quick children', im not even sure what that means only that it means human.

It refers to their short lifespan.  The term originally came from the supposedly immortal elves (more likely elves using blood magic to extend their lives like Avernus, but that's another story) who thought human lives were so short as to require a slur.  Since elves have lost their immortality and go out of their way to get themselves killed by being dumbasses, they would count as shemlen too.  Unfortunately, a fact that's lost on them.

Also, beings that you've defended fictional genocide, you'll have to forgive me if I scoff at your condemnation of fictional racism.

....Oh for cripe's sake.  Shemlen isn't a slur.  It's the Dalish word for human.  Granted, the Dalish tend to give the word a nasty spin, but it's just their language's term for the human race.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

true. Humans did beat them. However unfairly, unjustified, and unprovoked it may have been; they need to realize that they are not the best warriors on Thedas. If a human offers help, they take it as a sign that the Dalish aren't good fighters in their own right.

But humanity also needs to treat the elves like people too, which rarely if ever has happened in Thedas.

Er, not exactly.  You can be the best warriors on the planet and still be beaten to a pulp if the other side has greater technology, though I suppose this could lead to a discussion on whether being a good warrior includes or doesn't include one's weapons technology.  And for one group to offer to help another doesn't have to automatically mean they view that people as inferior fighters.  Allying yourself with another group for mutual benefit is an old tradition.  It doesn't mean "LULZ WITHOUT US YOU DIE."

I also have to take issue with the assertion a page back from this that being defeated by another culture is a sign of your own culture's weakness.

The Native peoples of the Americas are the best example I'm familiar with, though I'm not sure they'd appreciate being used as the poster child for example-making any more than the Jewish people as a whole do.  Many indigenous nations of the Americas were superb warriors.  The greatest advantage that European settlers had over them was sheer numbers.  Their--well, our--technology was superior, certainly, but it wasn't the deciding factor in the decimation of the Native peoples.  Disease takes the medal for that dubious honor.  

Sounds more like a case of cultural bias, honestly, to assert that inherent weakness was the cause.

I'm saying the Dalish take offense at anyone offering to help. I'm not saying that humans or dwarves view the elves as inferior fighters, but that the Dalish are too proud to accept help without thinking that the offering party is an a-hole to them. And Arlathan was a center of great knowledge, but Tevinter had dragons, magic, and demons at their disposal which made it harder.

They've got good reason to take offense.  It's not exactly out of left-field, completely unbelieveable that the Dalish would be extremely suspicious of any help offered to them by a human nation.  How many times does a people have to be pissed on before their innate suspicion is considered with something other than derision?

[TEWR]

They may have good reason for humans I guess, but for other Dalish elves (see Hahren Sarel) or dwarves? There isn't really a good reason.


Unless you assume that all dalish clans know of what Kal-Sharok did to Cadash Thaig, which is unlikely.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'd say a Dalish clan would be somewhere between 75-140 elves. That might be too much, but it's just my own personal guess.


And don't you think it's also cowardly to live a life where you're treated as a second-class citizen all the time, when a better option is somewhere out there? The somewhere is the problem sure, but it's not all that hard to find the Dalish. Just go to where nature is abundant.

Dismissing it as innate cowardice is about as self-righteous an attitude as there is. City Elves have been indoctrinated with the belief that the Dalish are evil heathens.  Boils down to the devil you know versus the devil you don't. 

It's grossly unfair and extremely privileged to expect a group of people who've been spoonfed boogeymen stories for generation after generation, and been systemically discriminated against for the same, to suddenly have the psychological tools they need to magically rise up and abandon everything they've known for all those generations.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

All they really have to do is spit on a faith that they and their ancestors were forced to believe in after being conquered and return to the true culture of their ancestors.


I think that's what you meant to say.

Pretty much everyone's faith is something that at least some of thier ancestors were forced into converting to.

The faith of their distant ancestors is irrelevent.  Nowadays, they are Andrasteans, as were their fathers and grandfathers.  Abandoning that faith merely for the prospect of a better life would be cowardly and contemptible.

Though I also don't think that them joining the Dalish en masse would work, anyway.  Incorporating a few new members into the clan is one thing, but there's a practical limit to the size of a clan, and city elves would be pretty much without any useful skills when they joined.

I don't think we've ever been given information on how many elves were allowed in one clan, save for 1 Keeper and 1 First.


Also, IIRC, Native Americans were allowed to believe in whatever they wanted. So it's not "everyone's faith" so much as it is "everyone's faith in these current times". And even then, not everyone chooses to believe what they are told to. People believe what they agree with/like more. It's hardly cowardly to embrace the religion of your ancestors just because you now worship a different faith.

Re: the bolded portion.  Yeah, um, NO.  Not by a long shot.  

[Wulfram]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And don't you think it's also cowardly to live a life where you're treated as a second-class citizen all the time, when a better option is somewhere out there? The somewhere is the problem sure, but it's not all that hard to find the Dalish. Just go to where nature is abundant.

If you're not prepared to embrace Dalish beliefs, joining them isn't an option.  They'd probably leave you to starve in the wilderness.

[Rifneno]

Silfren wrote...

I don't really know how to better articulate it.  I do realize what your point is, but the two situations aren't really equivalent.  They can both cause the same level of destruction, yes, but how they arrive at that point is different.  I think that's Gaider's point, actually.  A person who has the intelligence and the willingness to create a bomb that could wipe out an entire continent is still not quite as dangerous as a person who could trigger a fire by simply getting over-emotional or having a massive headache, or who could find themselves housing a demon if they sneezed during a trip to the Fade.  Which are a bit ridiculous, because you're right, we don't actually have objective evidence of just how at-risk mages are for either potential.

Oh yes, I agree it's not exactly the same.  But the effects are similar enough that condemning one could easily be used to condemn the other.  That's all I was trying to say.  As for the willingness part, that's why I went into the nuclear weapons analogy mostly.  The scientists that originally created it didn't realize the long term implications and risks.  They unleashed their "demon" without a conscious decision to do so.  Which is why I feel the analogy is reasonable enough.

Oh, agreed it was a very clumsy way of stating what I still am quite sure was his intended point.  But maybe it's just that I see people "mis-use" words all the time...or the fact that, again, words are not and can't be limited to their strict denotations as per the dictionary, so I always find it a little silly and reaching to take someone to task for something like that.  He could have found a much better way to phrase it, but I don't think he was quite that off-base.  Also, the man was writing a forum post, not a dissertation, so I don't think he felt the need to put that much effort into his post; nor do I think he expected people to nitpick and dissect his choice of wording so brutally.[

The thing is, I've seen him get on other people's cases for misusing words quite a few times.  I think a double digit percentage of his posts I've read talk about how people misuse "cliffhanger" or "plot hole."  So I think it's fair to hold him to the same standard with misusing the word "innocent."  And again, I think it's poor...  I don't know, professionalism I guess, for him to get involved in that kind of debate to begin with.  There's tons of chatting going on around here.  He doesn't clarify questions asked a hundred times like "was Orsino really a harvester, or was it a model recycle?" but he gets into debates about the morality of the Circle situation?  On multiple occasions?  No, I don't think it's some grand conspiracy.  I just think it's a writer unwilling to accept the truth that he failed his goal to portray a morally grey area and is getting into pissing contests with people that recogize such in a doomed effort to correct his failure.

[Deztyn]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Deztyn wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Deztyn wrote...

Polaris,

1) .... Orlais 'reputation' starts after the Fall of the Dales. That war happens before any of the others. Before Nevarra, before the schism with the Tevinter Chantry, before Fereldan. You're arguing a pattern of behavior that didn't even exist yet is proof of Orlais wrong.

[/quote]

In this case that's perfectly fair.  Orlais was and is an agressor nation and always has been.  There is no reasonable indication that Orlais prior to the fall of the Dales was much different in outlook or attitude than the Orlais afterwards.  As such, Orlais over the past 1000 years has an unfortunately pattern of behavior that makes me uninclined to give them the benefit of the doubt over the ENTIRE period.[/quote]

.... I think that if Orlais has truly been imperialistic (rather than opportunistic) for 1,000 years they win the Thedas Incompetency Award.
[/quote]

We KNOW that Orlais is truly imperialistic in nature (just as the Fereldans!).  As for incompetant....yeah, I'd say that current Orlais is pretty incompetant.[/quote]

It's all been downhill since Drakon.
[quote][quote][quote]
Wrong.  Big difference between neutrality and hostility.  The Dalish have nothing to gain by trying to conquer a bunch of "Shems" that hate them.  Now if the Human villages settled IN DALISH TERRITORY or the Villagers molested Dalish (and missionaries count), then the Dalish are protecting their own territory and their own soveign rights.  If a human village is dumb enough to set up in Dalish Territory, by all Sovereign Rights of Nations, they are completely at the whim of whatever the Dalish want to do with them.  Too bad, so sad.[/quote]

Who said Red Crossing was in Dalish territory? It wasn't. Not according to anything I've read. You're making up reasons for the attack on the village because you want them justified.

And neutrality in the face of an enemy that can't be reasoned with and will be at your door after dealing with your neighbor is either the very height of stupidity or malice. Neither one speaks very well of the Dalish.
[/quote]

I never said that Red Crossing was in Dalish Territory.  The fact is we don't KNOW why there was a skirmish at Red Crossing.  However, given Orlais' history and given that it was desperate for arable land after the second blight, I am more than willing to believe that Orlais either encouraged or permitted (and turned a blind eye) to peasents willing to trespass into Dalish Lands (esp with bad feelings post blight), and the Dalish responded.  I am also VERY willing to believe that the Chantry sent missionaries against the will and request of the Dalish.  If so, the Dalish were well within their rights to return them to Val Royeaux in little boxes.

Given the difference in histories, I am inclinded to give the Dalish the benefit of the doubt and I am not inclined to give Orlais the benefit of the doubt.  Orlais did this to themselves by playing the "game" in their history once too often at least for me.[/quote]

Translation: We don't know why Red Crossing was destroyed, but you want it to be the fault of Orlesians, so the resulting war can be entirely the fault of Orlesians.

[quote][quote][quote]
Sure it was.  The Chantry didn't consider a war with Orlais justifcation enough for an Exalted March did they?  No.  However, they clearly considered the fact that Orlais would LOSE a war to be justification and I'd say that makes it unprovoked.

Now, had the Chantry or others tried to broker a peace and the Dalish rejected it, I might have a different viewpoint, but there is no indication that the Divine even considered a peaceful solution.[/quote]

Again, we have a very limited view of events. We don't know that a peaceful solution wasn't considered. And it's irrelevant.

The Dalish were attacking Val Royeaux, a loss for Orlais there was a loss for the Chantry. You're actually proving my point, the Chantry didn't want an Exalted March until the seat of power for the Chantry itself was being threatened. Or were they just supposed to get out of the way?
[/quote]

The Dalish were attacking the capital of Orlais during a declared war.  The Chantry was NOT INVOLVED until the Chantry decided to abrogate both it's neutrality and Andraste's promise and involve themselves to bail out Orlais.

In short, if the Chantry wasn't willing to broker a peace (and call an exalted march only if that FAILS), then the Chantry needed to get out of the way because this wasn't the Chantry's fight.[/quote]

Again, again, we're not given an in depth look at the events, there might have been attempts to come to a peaceful solution, there might not have been. We don't know. We're not given detailed accounts of the war from either point of view. You're making an assumption and deciding based on that assumption that Orlais and the Chantry were entirely wrong.

I suspect that if it could be proven a Dalish warrior was holding a knife to the Divine's throat when she called for an Exalted March you'd still say they had no right to get involved because it was Orlais' war.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Look at who wrote the codex.  Dalish don't do unprovoked attacks.  Those that do are punished severely by their own keepers (see Velanna).[/quote]

Brother Genitivi, I know.

That doesn't mean he's lying, it may just mean it was a different Dalish clan.
[/quote]

Or his sources lied/mislead him.  Given that human foresters and villagers hate and despise the Dalish, I find the later very likely.[/quote]

Given that Dalish hate and despise humans, I don't see why it's so unlikely.

[quote][quote] [quote]

It shows that Orlais has a habit of stabbing nations in the back especially just after blights.  For that matter Orlais seems gearing up to do that to Fereldan while Fereldan is still weak.

It's part of an Orlesan pattern of behavior that shows that Orlais can not be trusted nor their accounts.  {That's the problem with 'playing the game'....play it too much and no one believes or trusts anything you say.}
[/quote]

It shows that Orlais is smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter. Going out of their way to attack the Dales while they're still weakened by the Blight is a very different situation.[/quote]

Which is another way of proving that Orlais is untrustworthy.  Thank you for proving my point.

-Polaris[/quote]

I never said Orlais was trustworthy. I said the circumstances were different. Sticking around in Nevarra and Kirkwall or taking advantage of a weakened Fereldan is not at all the same as attacking a strong enemy that remained completely untouched by the Blight when they hadn't recovered from the Blight. And I don't think Orlais' future history should have too much influence on how the Fall of the Dales is viewed.

There's no evidence to suggest the war on the Dales was unprovoked. None. Even when you troll Sarel, he still doesn't give an actual alternate history of the war, he just whines that it was their land and Shems had no right to take it from them.

And for what it's worth, I don't even have a problem with the idea that Orlais did just attack the Dales for the heck of it. But there's no proof of that. Just a lot of assumptions, and Choose Your Own History based on which side you prefer.

Modifié par Deztyn, 17 mai 2011 - 09:45 .