384 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

(the Templar's searching for Feynriel -- torturing a Dalish hunter to get information

Torturing a child hunter, I should add.

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

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?

So because you don't believe in the immortaility of elves it is invalid? Well the elves dont believe in the Makers promise to return if everyone worships him, so that is invalid thus the missionaries are invalid. The elves never call the humans a disease they call human contact a disease. You seem to be convinced that elvish beliefs should take a secondary place to andrastian.

If I walked up to your door and asked to come in and you said no could I punch you in the face and walk in anyway? No i couldnt. Why is this different?

It isnt but you are ignoring all the evidence and the elves beliefs to make your own point so since this is just going in circles, let me just say I thank God (yes Him) that people like you are no longer in control of Europe, else we would probably be involved in another crusade right now.

Edit: to clarify: right now nations like Iran actively outlaw practice of Christian beliefs so by you standards the Christian world should invade Iran because they aren't allowing them to preach.

Modifié par ghostmessiah202, 23 août 2012 - 10:26 .

[Fiacre]

Xilizhra wrote...

(the Templar's searching for Feynriel -- torturing a Dalish hunter to get information

Torturing a child hunter, I should add.

With fire, I think. Sounded pretty damn brutal in any case, and not at all justified. And I think that was relatively official...

[MisterJB]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
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?

I refute arguments, actually.

Men are allowed to be Brothers and Burker proves they can be sent on missionary missions. Petrice was just a fanatical which are present in any religion.

I've been debating with three people at once for quite some time now. I try to respond to everything but it's possible I might let a few pass. Either because I miss them or because I feel I have already responded to that.
Which are you talking about now?

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
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?

I refute arguments, actually.

Men are allowed to be Brothers and Burker proves they can be sent on missionary missions. Petrice was just a fanatical which are present in any religion.

I've been debating with three people at once for quite some time now. I try to respond to everything but it's possible I might let a few pass. Either because I miss them or because I feel I have already responded to that.
Which are you talking about now?

I missed your earlier comment so ignore that part.

Burke is not acting in an official capacity, he is a surfacer who believes in Andraste and returns to Orzammar WITHOUT official sanction to try and spread his faith. An official delegate would have been a sister or a mother, i.e. a woman.

[Fiacre]

Incidentally, was Burkel all that polite? He seemed pretty condescending towards dwarven beliefs. And when I rejected him, he implied that I'm a lost cause and have turned too far from the Maker and that I'm definitely wrong for believing that dwarven beliefs should be respected. (Yes, the dialogue option to do so isn't very polite either, I'll admit that, but I can't say I had a particularly positive impression of Burkel.)

[MisterJB]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
Edit: to clarify: right now nations like Iran actively outlaw practice of Christian beliefs so by you standards the Christian world should invade Iran because they aren't allowing them to preach.

I'm getting really tired of you distorting my words.
I have never said the Chantry should invade the Dales because of their intolerance. I've condemned their intolerance and pointed out the fact it serves only to incite hostility.

[General User]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

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?

The current situation in Mexico is not yet bad enough to justify US military intervention.  Inshallah it never will be.  Despite some rather thorny border issues, the relationship between the US and Mexico is for the most part characterized by peaceful commerce and mutual cooperation.  The same can not be said of the ancient dalish and any of their human neighbors.

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 Orlesians were fighting a war against a whole other country, not a bandit or warlord.  What did you expect them to do with the Dales after the war was over?  Give it back to the elves?  If they did that they'd just have another war on their hands down the road.

The Dalish only took one city and might have even given it back, but the Orlesians invaded.

The Dalish started the war by invading Orlais.  I'm sure they felt they were justified in doing so, maybe they even were.  But the opening act of aggression was theirs.

Modifié par General User, 23 août 2012 - 10:53 .

[Xilizhra]

The Dalish started the war by invading Orlais. I'm sure they felt they were justified in doing so, maybe they even were. But the opening act of aggression was theirs.

Only the first successful act. I suspect Orlais made a show of aggression beforehand.

The Orlesians were fighting a war against a whole other country, not a bandit or warlord. What did you expect them to do with the Dales after the war was over? Give it back to the elves? If they did that they'd just have another war on their hands down the road.

They shouldn't have pushed for war to begin with.

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
Edit: to clarify: right now nations like Iran actively outlaw practice of Christian beliefs so by you standards the Christian world should invade Iran because they aren't allowing them to preach.

I'm getting really tired of you distorting my words.
I have never said the Chantry should invade the Dales because of their intolerance. I've condemned their intolerance and pointed out the fact it serves only to incite hostility.

And yet you don't condemn the Chantry's intolerance. If you don't think the Dalish so called 'intolerance' isn't enough for Orlais to declare war then what is? The Orliasians had skirmishes with the Dalish before the real war broke out. So was their 'intolerance' enough to justify those battles? If so then that makes war inevitable. If humans are going to attack elves because of their intolerance then the elves will respond, as is just. That gives the Orliesians a casus belli to attack the Dales then? starting down a path that leads to war simply because of the so called 'intolerance'?

Edit: also I'm not twisting your words, that is how I interpret what you said.

Modifié par ghostmessiah202, 23 août 2012 - 10:42 .

[MisterJB]

Fiacre wrote...
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.

Burkel who seemed to be a good person.
Yes, he appeared to be somewhat condescent towards dwarven beliefs but he was willing to give shelter to a casteless boy and resorted only to peaceful protests.

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.

And those actions are all condemnable except for the Chanter's board.
But the Chantry also done quite a bit of peaceful convertion, created more moral populations, decreased the dangers of magic (tough I'm sure some would call that opression) as well as slavery.
Some dalish have engaged in guerrila wars with humans and conquered cities. Qunari are anything but peaceful.

So, is the Chantry incapable of immoral actions? No but I don't see evidence of it during the conflict with the Dales.

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.

The Chantry believes if the Chant is spread to all corners of the world, the Maker will return. Doesn't that justify their insistence the same way the elven beliefs justify their isolation?

Regardless, let's forget about morality for a second. Nations should function based on what is smart, practical. By refusing to accept any and all offers of friendship from Orlais, the elves helped to create the hostility that lead to its downfall.
It wasn't right but it wasn't unexpected either.

Modifié par MisterJB, 23 août 2012 - 10:45 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Dalish started the war by invading Orlais. I'm sure they felt they were justified in doing so, maybe they even were. But the opening act of aggression was theirs.

Only the first successful act. I suspect Orlais made a show of aggression beforehand.

I'm sure the Dalish thought so.  I'm equally sure that the Orlesians thought anything they did that could be construed "show of aggression" was justified by something the Dalish did.  And that the Dalish thought they were justified in doing whatever provoked the Orlesians.  And so on and so on.

Xilizhra wrote...

The Orlesians were fighting a war against a whole other country, not a bandit or warlord. What did you expect them to do with the Dales after the war was over? Give it back to the elves? If they did that they'd just have another war on their hands down the road.

They shouldn't have pushed for war to begin with. 

In terms of preventing a recurrence of war, Orlesian policy vis-a-vis the Dales these past 700 years has been indisputably successful.

Modifié par General User, 23 août 2012 - 10:46 .

[Xilizhra]

The Chantry believes if the Chant is spread to all corners of the world, the Maker will return. Doesn't that justify their insistence the same way the elven beliefs justify their isolation?

No. All the elves require is noninterference. The humans believe they have to interfere with everyone.

Regardless, let's forget about morality for a second. Nations should function based on what is smart, practical. By refusing to accept any and all offers of friendship from Orlais, the elves helped to create the hostility that lead to its downfall.
It wasn't right but it wasn't unexpected either.

Perhaps not. Humans are violent and irrational creatures. A pity about that.

[Xilizhra]

In terms of preventing a recurrence of war, Orlesian policy vis-a-vis the Dales these past 700 years has been indisputably successful.

For now. Hopefully, I'll be able to bring Orlais crashing down at the head of a force of all those they've tried to grind into dust.

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

The Chantry believes if the Chant is spread to all corners of the world, the Maker will return. Doesn't that justify their insistence the same way the elven beliefs justify their isolation?

Regardless, let's forget about morality for a second. Nations should function based on what is smart, practical. By refusing to accept any and all offers of friendship from Orlais, the elves helped to create the hostility that lead to its downfall.
It wasn't right but it wasn't unexpected either.

Ok, here is the double standrad. Because the Chantry believes they need to spread the CHant to every corner of the world they have the RIGHT to convert the Dalish. BUT despite the fast that the Dalish believe contact with humans will kill them they DONT have the right to isolation.

Nations should function based on practicallity, ok so we are still on Might Makes Right? Because Orlais is powerful the Dales either have to be friendly or face a justified war?

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
No. All the elves require is noninterference. The humans believe they have to interfere with everyone.

Double standards it is then.

Perhaps not. Humans are violent and irrational creatures. A pity about that.

The elves started the war based on a ridiculous belief that is rooted in racism.

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
No. All the elves require is noninterference. The humans believe they have to interfere with everyone.

Double standards it is then.

Perhaps not. Humans are violent and irrational creatures. A pity about that.

The elves started the war based on a ridiculous belief that is rooted in racism.

Your right! The elves conquered a town to prevent terrorists from attacking them, that was just a figmint of theri imagination and their racist ideas! They should have just accepted being attacked as a consequence of being different and learned to live with being murdered!

As for the double standards which has higher priority: how you deal with your own problems or how you deal with someone else's problems. Seems to me that wanting to be left alone is much less harmful to the world that killing everyone who disagrees with you.

Modifié par ghostmessiah202, 23 août 2012 - 10:55 .

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
No. All the elves require is noninterference. The humans believe they have to interfere with everyone.

Double standards it is then.

Perhaps not. Humans are violent and irrational creatures. A pity about that.

The elves started the war based on a ridiculous belief that is rooted in racism.

I suspect the humans started the war, personally. Of course, we can't know either way, but your declarative statements are most amusing.

[dragonflight288]

wow. I've been reading where I left off on page 8. For the past half hour I've been reading all the points and counter-points.

DESTROY ALL THE INTOLERANT! KILL ALL THE DALISH AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE CHANTRY AND ALSO ORLAIS! Not only will that end the war, but it will also end the border skrimishes.

To be perfectly fair, however, in this particular debate (which is very refreshing from the standard mage/templar one) I'm more inclined to believe that Orlais started the War, the Chantry supported Orlais, and severely underestimated the Dalish so an Exalted March was called.

Add in that Orlais would want more land since a large chunk of theirs was tainted by darkspawn, I genuinely believe that Orlais and the Chantry is far more at guilt than the elves.

I don't believe for a second that the Dalish were clean of crime, or committed wrongs. I'm absolutely positive they did. But the odds are strongly in the favor of Orlais and the Chantry being the instigators. There is strong evidence to support violence on the part of missionaries and their religious beliefs, there is plenty of evidence to showcase that the Chantry and Orlais are too connected to be separated from each other. And there is the long Orlesian history of simply conquering and occupying everyone else, for the sake of it.

All the evidence in the game shows that the Dalish are arrogant and self-righteous to the point of idiocy, but they want to be left alone. Violently if need be, but they mind their own business and avoid others.

[MisterJB]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
Your right! The elves conquered a town to prevent terrorists from attacking them, that was just a figmint of theri imagination and their racist ideas! They should have just accepted being attacked as a consequence of being different and learned to live with being murdered!

Still working on the assumption the humans started it, are you?

Maybe they should have given up on the racist idea that humans are sick children and actually engage in commerce and diplomacy with them. You know, the things that help keep peace?

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
Your right! The elves conquered a town to prevent terrorists from attacking them, that was just a figmint of theri imagination and their racist ideas! They should have just accepted being attacked as a consequence of being different and learned to live with being murdered!

Still working on the assumption the humans started it, are you?

Maybe they should have given up on the racist idea that humans are sick children and actually engage in commerce and diplomacy with them. You know, the things that help keep peace?

You keep mentioning Commerce and Diplomacy... NOWHERE in DA is it mentioned. You made up these points to support your arguement. The only thing mentioned is that MISSIONARIES were sent. It NEVER says Orlais tried diplomacy or commerce, you're enitre point is predicated on assumptions that have no basis in fact.

Plus you keep saying the Elven ideas are meaningless while the Andrastian ones actually give them rights.

Here is an example: Say that I believe you stole a ring from me and are hiding it in your house. You believe I am bat crap crazy. Do I have the right to beat you up and search your house, then take a ring that may or may not be mine? Or do you have the right to say, "Go away crazy person" and slam your door in my face?

[Fiacre]

MisterJB wrote...

Burkel who seemed to be a good person.
Yes, he appeared to be somewhat condescent towards dwarven beliefs but he was willing to give shelter to a casteless boy and resorted only to peaceful protests.

He did? When was that? I've never gotten that. huh. He might not be as much of a jerk as I thought...

And those actions are all condemnable except for the Chanter's board.
But the Chantry also done quite a bit of peaceful convertion, created more moral populations, decreased the dangers of magic (tough I'm sure some would call that opression) as well as slavery.
Some dalish have engaged in guerrila wars with humans and conquered cities. Qunari are anything but peaceful.

So, is the Chantry incapable of immoral actions? No but I don't see evidence of it during the conflict with the Dales.

What do we know of peaceful conversion? Apart from burkel and possibly Rigby (again, Genitivi is a scholar).

And what is done to the mages is oppression. They're taken away from their familis, unless those families are rich and influential they won't be allowed to have any contact with them, they're lockked into a tower or whatever else their Circle is housed in, subjected to physical abuse -- i.e. rape, beatings -- that they can't do anything against it because the perpetrator have absolute power over them, and to emotional abuse -- i.e. being told their monsters and cursed and a danger to everyone until they believe it and their minds break and tey become a self loathing mess -- that again, they can't do anything against, they're forced to undergo a potentially deadly ritual that they're not allowed to kno anything about beforehand, iof they're deemed weak their tranquilized -- practically turned into walking corpses emotionless husks with nothing left of their former selfs but their bodies that may, again, be used as sex slaves by the Templars.

I wouldn't be surprised if I forgot something. what's done to the mages is oppression and it isn't right and if the Chantry fears the dangers of magic so much they damn well should make a better system to prevent them, one that doesn't dehumanize mages.

The Chantry believes if the Chant is spread to all corners of the world, the Maker will return. Doesn't that justify their insistence the same way the elven beliefs justify their isolation?

Regardless, let's forget about morality for a second. Nations should function based on what is smart, practical. By refusing to accept any and all offers of friendship from Orlais, the elves helped to create the hostility that lead to its downfall.
It wasn't right but it wasn't unexpected either.

Certainly, from their point of view it is. That doesn't make them morally right, most certainly not from my point of view and that's the one I've been arguing from.

Perhaps, you're right, but that doesn't mean that the humans' actions should be defended. That's not how things should be and one shold strife to improve them.

[MisterJB]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

You keep mentioning Commerce and Diplomacy... NOWHERE in DA is it mentioned. You made up these points to support your arguement. The only thing mentioned is that MISSIONARIES were sent. It NEVER says Orlais tried diplomacy or commerce, you're enitre point is predicated on assumptions that have no basis in fact.

Codex Entry: The Dales.
Non-Dalish Warden.

"But the old era wasn't through with them. In their forest city, the
elves turned again to worship their silent, ancient gods. They became
increasingly isolationist, posting Emerald Knights who guarded their
borders with jealousy, rebuking all efforts at trade or civilized
discourse."

Plus you keep saying the Elven ideas are meaningless while the Andrastian ones actually give them rights.

What I am saying is that the elven ideas are self destructive.

Here is an example: Say that I believe you stole a ring from me and are hiding it in your house. You believe I am bat crap crazy. Do I have the right to beat you up and search your house, then take a ring that may or may not be mine? Or do you have the right to say, "Go away crazy person" and slam your door in my face?

Awful analogy.

[Xilizhra]

What I am saying is that the elven ideas are self destructive.

No moreso than the Andrastian ones.

[The Night Haunter]

MisterJB wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

You keep mentioning Commerce and Diplomacy... NOWHERE in DA is it mentioned. You made up these points to support your arguement. The only thing mentioned is that MISSIONARIES were sent. It NEVER says Orlais tried diplomacy or commerce, you're enitre point is predicated on assumptions that have no basis in fact.

Codex Entry: The Dales.
Non-Dalish Warden.

"But the old era wasn't through with them. In their forest city, the
elves turned again to worship their silent, ancient gods. They became
increasingly isolationist, posting Emerald Knights who guarded their
borders with jealousy, rebuking all efforts at trade or civilized
discourse."

Plus you keep saying the Elven ideas are meaningless while the Andrastian ones actually give them rights.

What I am saying is that the elven ideas are self destructive.

Here is an example: Say that I believe you stole a ring from me and are hiding it in your house. You believe I am bat crap crazy. Do I have the right to beat you up and search your house, then take a ring that may or may not be mine? Or do you have the right to say, "Go away crazy person" and slam your door in my face?

Awful analogy.

Really? It seems like a good analogy to me. You think because the chantry believes in spreading the word of the maker they have the right to invade the Dales to insure thier missionaries can preach. You dont believe that the elves own religious and cultural ideas should be able to dictate their own actions. Seems pretty similar to me.

But I think i am done with this thread, it has been a fun diversion, but I am sad to see how close minded some people are. Thank God we moved out of the the Medieval Age and into the Age of Reason, otherwise we would still be fighting wars over religion.