384 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Naming an entire age in a celebration of Orlais' Imperial Glory? Seems to be a pretty big deal to me.

Money, blades, templars. Now that would be supporting Orlais.
It's just a name.

And where is your proof that those bloody missionaries were non aggressive at first and how does the Chantry have the right to keep sending them if the elves say "Nope, not interested"? They don't have that right. If the elves weren't interested in conversion, than the right and tolerant thing to do would have been to stop pestering them, not going so far as to send *soldiers*.

A couple of men in robes is not going to risk antagonizing any elven population by being agressive. Look at Rigby or Genitivi. They weren't hurting anyone and the right and tolerant thing to do would be to allow them to preach.

It's just a name? Apparently you don't know how politics works. The Name would show that the Chantry itself supports Orlais and would cause any Andrastian citizen to question actions taken against Orlais.

You don't know who the chantry sent. You say they were in robes and not being agressive, where is the proof? Our proof is Rivain, where thousands are slaughtered because they follow the Qun and not the Maker.

And again you think that Orlais has a right to send missionaries into the Dales? The Elves were wrong to bar them? Wow that is intolerant. You completely disregard their entire culture and say they should accept the Andrastian parisioners just cause? The Elven Religion says that contact with humans kills them, so THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are that they should not have any contact with humans, but you say the orliesiens shouldn't respect this belief while the Dales should respect the Orliesians? I am amazed at your intollerance.

[The Night Haunter]

General User wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

General User wrote...

Of course you're right about that.  I'm just saying nowhere are any of the other nations that fought in the Exhalted March against the Dales mentioned as having any problem with the putting the Dalish in black hats.  That doesn't make sense unless the elves had much to engender hostility and little to encourage friendship amoungst all their human neighbors, not just the Orlesians.

They were elves. Look at all the blatant racism against the elves you see everywhere; even Lelian engages in causal racism until your elf PC calls her out on that, and one of her good friends in her DLC was an elven mage.

Humans don't seem to have any problem living an working with dwarves.  The hostility between elves and human is more than simple "blatant racism".  There's bad blood there.  And "racism" is just as much a symptom as a cause.

But with Dwarves the Tevinter traded instead of conquering, because sending armies underground would have resulted in massacres, the dwarves had a huge empire and could defend it.

Yes.  The relationship between the Dwarven Kingdoms and their human neighbors is (for the most part) characterized by peaceful commerce and mutal respect.  The Dalish would have done well to follow that example.  Unfortunately for them, it appears that they did not.

Actually there is no evidence of that. All we know is that the Elves were invaded by Tevinter. We dont know why or exactly when. So maybe the elves did try for peace but the Tevinter invaded anyway. Cant make that call.

[Fiacre]

MisterJB wrote...


Money, blades, templars. Now that would be supporting Orlais.
It's just a name.

Symbolism is important and powerful. Naming an entire age -- an entire centrury -- in celebration of Orlais conquering, oppressing other countries; supporting Orlais' action there -- rape, beating people to death with riding crops, all those horrid crimes Orlais committed against Fereldans during the occupation -- that's a big deal. And it is utterly disgusting.

A couple of men in robes is not going to risk antagonizing any elven population by being agressive. Look at Rigby or Genitivi. They weren't hurting anyone and the right and tolerant thing to do would be to allow them to preach.

We don't know if they were all like Rigby and Genitivi. And I don't like people preaching to me if I said I'm not interested; am I horrible person for not sitting down and listening to it? The elves said no. The Chantry should have respected that. Them pushing their beliefs on the elves was wrong.

Modifié par Fiacre, 23 août 2012 - 09:55 .

[General User]

Fiacre wrote...

General User wrote...
[T]erritories they had liberated from the darkspawn", huh?  You mean largely depopulated, almost certainly lawless, blight lands?  I'll tell you what, if I were the Emperor of Orlais, I would have had my victorious armies occupy those territories too, for humanitarian as well as practical reasons.  Depending on the situation, forty years is not actually that long a time.

Remember, there's no set form imperialism has to take.  Just because something may be considered "imperialism" form one angle or another, doesn't make it a bad thing.

Was all of Ferelden destroyed by the blights?

Once again, I'm not going to paint Orlais black in everything they've ever done just because they once attempted to conquer Ferelden.

Orlais had no right to occupy. They could have offered their help -- had nevarra needed it and turned
it down then had they been dying from the effects of the blight it would
have been their own fault. but the Blight doesn't justify Orlais simply
occupying them.

Depending on what condition those lands were in following their liberation from the darkspawn, the Orlesians may not only have had a right to occupy them, but a duty to do so.

Modifié par General User, 23 août 2012 - 09:55 .

[The Night Haunter]

General User wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

General User wrote...
[T]erritories they had liberated from the darkspawn", huh?  You mean largely depopulated, almost certainly lawless, blight lands?  I'll tell you what, if I were the Emperor of Orlais, I would have had my victorious armies occupy those territories too, for humanitarian as well as practical reasons.  Depending on the situation, forty years is not actually that long a time.

Remember, there's no set form imperialism has to take.  Just because something may be considered "imperialism" form one angle or another, doesn't make it a bad thing.

Was all of Ferelden destroyed by the blights?

Once again, I'm not going to paint Orlais black in everything they've ever done just because they once attempted to conquer Ferelden.

General User wrote...

Orlais had no right to occupy. They could have offered their help -- had nevarra needed it and turned
it down then had they been dying from the effects of the blight it would
have been their own fault. but the Blight doesn't justify Orlais simply
occupying them.

Depending on what condition those lands were in following their liberation from the darkspawn, the Orlesians may not only have had a right to occupy them, but a duty to do so.

That's why all those lands had to forcibly remove Orlais? Why they rose up in revolt?

[MisterJB]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
2:5 Glory: Increasing hostility between elves and man result in numerous border skirmishes between the Dales and Orlais.
Finally, in 2:9 Glory, elven forces attack the Orlesian town of Red
Crossing and quickly take it over. The atrocities they are said to have
committed there against the humans of the town and the Chantry enraged humans across the land. Orlais immediately went to war with the Dales, but was initially surprised by the ferocity of the elven response. A quick Orlesian victory was not going to happen.

-From wiki

NUMEROUS border skirmishes. Not just the elves up and attacked.

As for why the humans allowed the elves to live in peace for 300 years.

The second blight occured in 1:5 i think and lasted almost a century. Kinda hard to be imperialistic when your existence is threatened.

And no I don't mean attacking Orlies, I mean Red Crossing. Terrorists were doubtless using that city as a base to launch attacks against the Dales. If there were numerous conflicts the the closest city would be the logical base. The Elves took the town to try and stop the attacks, not to attack Orlies. After that is when Orlais declared war and invaded the Dales. Note here they actually invaded the Dales BEFORE the elves pushed them back, and sacked Val Royeaux.

Now who's making some wild speculation? "Border Skirmishes" doesn't translate into "humans terrorists were attacking elves and they just wanted them to stop".
The fact that the elves conquered an entire city shows evidence of expansionism. Orlais declared war but that doesn't mean they invaded the Dales. They could have just been trying to take their town back.

Funny you should mention the Second Blight where an elven army did nothing while a nearby human city was butchered which greatly contributed towards animosity between the two races.

However, there is also reason to suspect the Chantry,
which objected to the worship of the elven pantheon, of inciting fear
and hatred of the elves by allegedly spreading false rumours of human
sacrifice
-Wiki

So the chantry spread rumors and fearmongering against the elves? Sounds like they were preparing for Orliasian imperialism.

Or they were just unhappy their peaceful missionaries were constantly beinf turned back the border.
which could have been avoided if the elves were more willing to cooperate with humans.

[General User]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

General User wrote...
[T]erritories they had liberated from the darkspawn", huh?  You mean largely depopulated, almost certainly lawless, blight lands?  I'll tell you what, if I were the Emperor of Orlais, I would have had my victorious armies occupy those territories too, for humanitarian as well as practical reasons.  Depending on the situation, forty years is not actually that long a time.

Remember, there's no set form imperialism has to take.  Just because something may be considered "imperialism" form one angle or another, doesn't make it a bad thing.

Was all of Ferelden destroyed by the blights?

Once again, I'm not going to paint Orlais black in everything they've ever done just because they once attempted to conquer Ferelden.

General User wrote...

Orlais had no right to occupy. They could have offered their help -- had nevarra needed it and turned
it down then had they been dying from the effects of the blight it would
have been their own fault. but the Blight doesn't justify Orlais simply
occupying them.

Depending on what condition those lands were in following their liberation from the darkspawn, the Orlesians may not only have had a right to occupy them, but a duty to do so.

That's why all those lands had to forcibly remove Orlais? Why they rose up in revolt?

Any "revolts" that did happen are much more likely to have their roots in discontent with how the Orlesians were running things than any thing else.  I guess that's the thing about Orlais, she loves having a foreign empire, she's just really bad at it.

[Fiacre]

General User wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

General User wrote...
[T]erritories they had liberated from the darkspawn", huh?  You mean largely depopulated, almost certainly lawless, blight lands?  I'll tell you what, if I were the Emperor of Orlais, I would have had my victorious armies occupy those territories too, for humanitarian as well as practical reasons.  Depending on the situation, forty years is not actually that long a time.

Remember, there's no set form imperialism has to take.  Just because something may be considered "imperialism" form one angle or another, doesn't make it a bad thing.

Was all of Ferelden destroyed by the blights?

Once again, I'm not going to paint Orlais black in everything they've ever done just because they once attempted to conquer Ferelden.

Orlais had no right to occupy. They could have offered their help -- had nevarra needed it and turned
it down then had they been dying from the effects of the blight it would
have been their own fault. but the Blight doesn't justify Orlais simply
occupying them.

Depending on what condition those lands were in following their liberation from the darkspawn, the Orlesians may not only have had a right to occupy them, but a duty to do so.

How could they have ever had that duty? Had the people that lived there asked for them to saty, asked for their help, then sure, I'm all for it, so kind of you to help, Orlais!

But they didn't the right or duty to occupy people against their will, no matter what condition those lands were in.

I'm not against help. I like help. Help is great. People that help are great. I highly doubt Orlais was just helping.

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
2:5 Glory: Increasing hostility between elves and man result in numerous border skirmishes between the Dales and Orlais.
Finally, in 2:9 Glory, elven forces attack the Orlesian town of Red
Crossing and quickly take it over. The atrocities they are said to have
committed there against the humans of the town and the Chantry enraged humans across the land. Orlais immediately went to war with the Dales, but was initially surprised by the ferocity of the elven response. A quick Orlesian victory was not going to happen.

-From wiki

NUMEROUS border skirmishes. Not just the elves up and attacked.

As for why the humans allowed the elves to live in peace for 300 years.

The second blight occured in 1:5 i think and lasted almost a century. Kinda hard to be imperialistic when your existence is threatened.

And no I don't mean attacking Orlies, I mean Red Crossing. Terrorists were doubtless using that city as a base to launch attacks against the Dales. If there were numerous conflicts the the closest city would be the logical base. The Elves took the town to try and stop the attacks, not to attack Orlies. After that is when Orlais declared war and invaded the Dales. Note here they actually invaded the Dales BEFORE the elves pushed them back, and sacked Val Royeaux.

Now who's making some wild speculation? "Border Skirmishes" doesn't translate into "humans terrorists were attacking elves and they just wanted them to stop".
The fact that the elves conquered an entire city shows evidence of expansionism. Orlais declared war but that doesn't mean they invaded the Dales. They could have just been trying to take their town back.

Umm actually it doesnt. Many times in wars in the real world a city is captured by an invading or defending army, but is given back to owner upon declaration of peace.

During the Napoleanic Wars England conquered several French cities on the mainland, but returned control of them to France once Napolean abdicated.

So YOU are the one assuming the elves were actually conquering and not just trying to force Orlais into surrender. Do you think they should have sat in the Dales and just fought there? Because you don't win a war through defensive action.

Funny you should mention the Second Blight where an elven army did nothing while a nearby human city was butchered which greatly contributed towards animosity between the two races.

However, there is also reason to suspect the Chantry,
which objected to the worship of the elven pantheon, of inciting fear
and hatred of the elves by allegedly spreading false rumours of human
sacrifice
-Wiki

So the chantry spread rumors and fearmongering against the elves? Sounds like they were preparing for Orliasian imperialism.

Or they were just unhappy their peaceful missionaries were constantly beinf turned back the border.
which could have been avoided if the elves were more willing to cooperate with humans.

Again, you show intolerance and are unaccepting of Elven Religous beliefs. Their religious beliefs require isolationism, but you think that doesnt matter. They should accept missionaries anyway, just because it would be polite. You show a disgusting double standard here that implies the elves should respect Andrastian beliefs but the Andrastians do not need to accept the Elven Religous beliefs.

[The Night Haunter]

General User wrote...
Any "revolts" that did happen are much more likely to have their roots in discontent with how the Orlesians were running things than any thing else.  I guess that's the thing about Orlais, she loves having a foreign empire, she's just really bad at it.

My point. Orleis had no right conquering those territories, just shows their imperialism, which is also expressed when they conquer the Dales.

[MisterJB]

Fiacre wrote...
We don't know if they were all like Rigby and Genitivi. And I don't like people preaching to me if I said I'm not interested; am I horrible person for not sitting down and listening to it? The elves said no. The Chantry should have respected that. Them pushing their beliefs on the elves was wrong.

Have we ever met an Andrastian missionary that wasn't a quite pleasant person?
The elves didn't need to acknowledge Andraste as a prophet. Allowing missionaries to preach to whoever would listen would go a long way in keeping the peace. Not to mention merchants and diplomats. The elves did their best to create animosity between themselves and humanity.

[Xilizhra]

Have we ever met an Andrastian missionary that wasn't a quite pleasant person?

Petrice. Certainly, spreading faith was her goal.

[The Night Haunter]

Xilizhra wrote...

Have we ever met an Andrastian missionary that wasn't a quite pleasant person?

Petrice. Certainly, spreading faith was her goal.

Haha +1 for us!

[General User]

Fiacre wrote...

General User wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

General User wrote...
[T]erritories they had liberated from the darkspawn", huh?  You mean largely depopulated, almost certainly lawless, blight lands?  I'll tell you what, if I were the Emperor of Orlais, I would have had my victorious armies occupy those territories too, for humanitarian as well as practical reasons.  Depending on the situation, forty years is not actually that long a time.

Remember, there's no set form imperialism has to take.  Just because something may be considered "imperialism" form one angle or another, doesn't make it a bad thing.

Was all of Ferelden destroyed by the blights?

Once again, I'm not going to paint Orlais black in everything they've ever done just because they once attempted to conquer Ferelden.

Orlais had no right to occupy. They could have offered their help -- had nevarra needed it and turned
it down then had they been dying from the effects of the blight it would
have been their own fault. but the Blight doesn't justify Orlais simply
occupying them.

Depending on what condition those lands were in following their liberation from the darkspawn, the Orlesians may not only have had a right to occupy them, but a duty to do so.

How could they have ever had that duty? Had the people that lived there asked for them to saty, asked for their help, then sure, I'm all for it, so kind of you to help, Orlais!

But they didn't the right or duty to occupy people against their will, no matter what condition those lands were in.

I'm not against help. I like help. Help is great. People that help are great. I highly doubt Orlais was just helping.

A nation's interests don't end at it's borders you know.  If those lands were lawless, home to darkspawn bands, some dangerous local warlord(s), etc, etc.  Then, yes Orlais would have had both a right and a duty to occupy those lands for as long as they felt was necessary to deal with those threats.

[The Night Haunter]

General User wrote...
]A nation's interests don't end at it's borders you know.  If those lands were lawless, home to darkspawn bands, some dangerous local warlord(s), etc, etc.  Then, yes Orlais would have had both a right and a duty to occupy those lands for as long as they felt was necessary to deal with those threats.

By that logic America has a duty to invade Mexico because of all the drug cartels there. They negatively impact America and they are lawless so it fills criteria. Lets invade Mexico!

[General User]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...
Any "revolts" that did happen are much more likely to have their roots in discontent with how the Orlesians were running things than any thing else.  I guess that's the thing about Orlais, she loves having a foreign empire, she's just really bad at it.

My point. Orleis had no right conquering those territories, just shows their imperialism, which is also expressed when they conquer the Dales.

Only it was the Dalish who started the war with Orlais.  And the Orlesians may have had every right to add some of the territories that they did to their empire.

[The Night Haunter]

General User wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...
Any "revolts" that did happen are much more likely to have their roots in discontent with how the Orlesians were running things than any thing else.  I guess that's the thing about Orlais, she loves having a foreign empire, she's just really bad at it.

My point. Orleis had no right conquering those territories, just shows their imperialism, which is also expressed when they conquer the Dales.

Only it was the Dalish who started the war with Orlais.  And the Orlesians may have had every right to add some of the territories that they did to their empire.

You don't know the Dalish started it. You know they conquered Red Crossing which was the official start of the war. But all the 'skirmishes' that occured prior to then don't count?

[General User]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...
]A nation's interests don't end at it's borders you know.  If those lands were lawless, home to darkspawn bands, some dangerous local warlord(s), etc, etc.  Then, yes Orlais would have had both a right and a duty to occupy those lands for as long as they felt was necessary to deal with those threats.

By that logic America has a duty to invade Mexico because of all the drug cartels there. They negatively impact America and they are lawless so it fills criteria. Lets invade Mexico!

It's happened before.  Mexican Expedition, 1916-17.

[MisterJB]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
Umm actually it doesnt. Many times in wars in the real world a city is captured by an invading or defending army, but is given back to owner upon declaration of peace.

During the Napoleanic Wars England conquered several French cities on the mainland, but returned control of them to France once Napolean abdicated.

So YOU are the one assuming the elves were actually conquering and not just trying to force Orlais into surrender. Do you think they should have sat in the Dales and just fought there? Because you don't win a war through defensive action.

There wasn't any war at the time. There was animosity from both sides that caused border skirmishes. Of course, it was certainly difficult to resolve them peacefully since the Dalish didn't allow human diplomats acess to their land.
The elves started the actual war by conquering an orlesian town.

Again, you show intolerance and are unaccepting of Elven Religous beliefs. Their religious beliefs require isolationism, but you think that doesnt matter. They should accept missionaries anyway, just because it would be polite. You show a disgusting double standard here that implies the elves should respect Andrastian beliefs but the Andrastians do not need to accept the Elven Religous beliefs.

First, their belief that contact with humans shorthens their lifespan is not based on religion. Just on myths from Arlathan which are probrably rooted on pure racism.
Second, there is a reason commerce and diplomacy are peacekeeping tools. Mantaining good relations with your neighboring nation is simply the smart thing to do. Treating them as if they are a disease incites hostility.
What is more important? A lasting homeland or a poorly defined immortality whose existence is questionable?

[General User]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...
Any "revolts" that did happen are much more likely to have their roots in discontent with how the Orlesians were running things than any thing else.  I guess that's the thing about Orlais, she loves having a foreign empire, she's just really bad at it.

My point. Orleis had no right conquering those territories, just shows their imperialism, which is also expressed when they conquer the Dales.

Only it was the Dalish who started the war with Orlais.  And the Orlesians may have had every right to add some of the territories that they did to their empire.

You don't know the Dalish started it. You know they conquered Red Crossing which was the official start of the war. But all the 'skirmishes' that occured prior to then don't count?

Granted we don't know who started it.  But we do know that it was the Dalish who took it to the next level.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...easant person?
Petrice. Certainly, spreading faith was her goal.

She was a Mother and backed by an army of templars on her own turf. Completely different situation.
Burkel, Genitivi, Rigby are all incredibly polite and pleasant people.

[The Night Haunter]

General User wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

General User wrote...
]A nation's interests don't end at it's borders you know.  If those lands were lawless, home to darkspawn bands, some dangerous local warlord(s), etc, etc.  Then, yes Orlais would have had both a right and a duty to occupy those lands for as long as they felt was necessary to deal with those threats.

By that logic America has a duty to invade Mexico because of all the drug cartels there. They negatively impact America and they are lawless so it fills criteria. Lets invade Mexico!

It's happened before.  Mexican Expedition, 1916-17.

I know, but is right? Would it be right today?

Also note: America DID NOT conquer any territory in Mexico, we went in killed some organized crime peeps then left. The Orlesians DID conquer territory. The Dalish only took one city and might have even given it back, but the Orlesians invaded.

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...easant person?
Petrice. Certainly, spreading faith was her goal.

She was a Mother and backed by an army of templars on her own turf. Completely different situation.
Burkel, Genitivi, Rigby are all incredibly polite and pleasant people.

LOL, so you wish to ignore evidence that contradicts you? OK, this is good.

Everyone you mentioned is a MAN, men are not allowed int he Chantry Hierarchy, thus anyone sent in an official capacity to the Dales would have been a WOMAN, and the only woman we saw who tried to convert anyone was Petrice. So nice try.

I also notice you aren't responding to any of the arguements where we give evidence. do you just not want to believe the evidence so you don't bother to respond to it? You also ignored the comment on double standards which undermines the basis of your arguement, no reply to that?

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...easant person?
Petrice. Certainly, spreading faith was her goal.

She was a Mother and backed by an army of templars on her own turf. Completely different situation.
Burkel, Genitivi, Rigby are all incredibly polite and pleasant people.

Rigby's dead and his personality is unknown. And Petrice is an excellent example of what the Chantry can think about those of other religious affiliations, as well as those loyal to it. In any case, in Act 1, she was only a sister operating without any sanction, with only one templar. I doubt she had any other backup at all.

[Fiacre]

MisterJB wrote...

Have we ever met an Andrastian missionary that wasn't a quite pleasant person?
The elves didn't need to acknowledge Andraste as a prophet. Allowing missionaries to preach to whoever would listen would go a long way in keeping the peace. Not to mention merchants and diplomats. The elves did their best to create animosity between themselves and humanity.

Have we even met any? We've found the corpses of two and other than they apparently caring about each other, we know nothing. Genitivi wasn't even a missionary, he was a scholar.

And thousands of people have been killed in rivain simply for refusing to convert back to Andrsateis -- against a treaty signed with the Qunari, as I should add. We know of the Chantry's intlerance towards the Dalish (the Templar's searching for Feynriel -- torturing a Dalish hunter to get information, the Chanter's board quest in DAA were the Templars try to find out more about Dalish magic and how to counter it). Petrice may not have been a missionary, but she showed how brutal and intolerant the Andrastians can become, missionaries included.

The Dalish weren't interested in being preached at; they were trying to reclaim their culture, had their own beliefs, weren't interested in conversion. The Chntry can send missionaries, the Dalish say no, the Chantry say sure, we accept that and that's it and I would never complain about it. That's perfectly acceptable. To keep bothering the elves, to send soldiers, that's wrong and intolerant of the elves wanting to be left alone.

And no matter of the Quickening is real or not, the elves believe it is, and that is all the more reason to stay away from humans. The humans could have respected that. There are other nations to trade with and ignoring each other isn't that hard. They could have done that. they had no reason and no right to force themselves on the Dales.

Perhaps dalish isolationism wasn't smart, but that doesn't make Orlais and the Chantry's behaviour right or justified.