384 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

So the Chantry robbed another culture of it's rights and self-sustainability through propaganda and bloodshed?

Surprising! Right?

[MisterJB]

Because the elven march through Orlais and the sack of Val Royeaux were righteous and bloodless, right?
The Exalted March was only called afterwards.

Modifié par MisterJB, 21 août 2012 - 09:42 .

[Xilizhra]

Disproportionate retribution.

[dragonflight288]

Without more historical facts, it becomes difficult to say who's crimes were greater. There are two sides to a story, and I believe the Chantry and Orlais had the most to gain from a war, but the elves could easily have committed a lot of crimes themselves as they sacked Val Royeaux.

Without more data, it's difficult to say.

but I do agree that completely destroying a nation was completely unnecessary of the Chantry and Orlais.

[MisterJB]

Orlais occupies other nations. Destroying one entirely goes completely against their modus operandi. While it could be a result of racial hatred, it could also be interpreted as a response caused by the brutality of the elves.
We know that elves see humans as a blight thus, it is obvious they attempted to destroy Orlais entirely. While I won't defend the destruction of an entire culture, I also find it hard to describe it as "disproportionate retribution"
The humans were, understandably, angry and they did to the Dales what the elves attempted to do to Orlais. It is likely they were actually more merciful because the elves want the humans gone completely and I don't see them building alienages in conquered territory.

[MisterJB]

Let's assume the elves are telling the complete truth and the Chantry opened hostilities by sending Templars to convert them. Attempting to destroy Orlais over this...now, that is disproportionate retribution.

[dragonflight288]

Again, without more facts, it's hard to know. It could have very well been racial tensions escalating on the border, the tempalars could have attacked first (most likely Orlais started it) and a political snowball gone out of control. Or the Dalish may have been goaded into attacking the heart of the Chantry by Orlais, knowing that if Val Royeaux was threatened, the Chantry would intervene.

I have no idea, and all anything anyone says at this point will be a theory, with just as much credibility as the next person's.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Let's assume the elves are telling the complete truth and the Chantry opened hostilities by sending Templars to convert them. Attempting to destroy Orlais over this...now, that is disproportionate retribution.

Sacking a city doesn't equate to that. You have no proof of the elven intention in the matter.

[dragonflight288]

Xilizhra wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Let's assume the elves are telling the complete truth and the Chantry opened hostilities by sending Templars to convert them. Attempting to destroy Orlais over this...now, that is disproportionate retribution.

Sacking a city doesn't equate to that. You have no proof of the elven intention in the matter.

At the very least, we can also admit that there's no proof of elven innocence either. There's a greater chance that Orlais started the war, and the elves defended themselves. But were the elves guilty of war crimes themselves? There's a good chance that's true, much like the Chantry and Orlais being guilty of warcrimes too.

It's simply a sad fact that in War, atrocities happen and are caused by all sides.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Let's assume the elves are telling the complete truth and the Chantry opened hostilities by sending Templars to convert them. Attempting to destroy Orlais over this...now, that is disproportionate retribution.

Sacking a city doesn't equate to that. You have no proof of the elven intention in the matter.

Sacking a capital equates to that. If you attack the capital of a nation, you are either intent on conquering it or destroying it completely. Since elves think of humans as a blight, there is really only one option.

[DKJaigen]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Let's assume the elves are telling the complete truth and the Chantry opened hostilities by sending Templars to convert them. Attempting to destroy Orlais over this...now, that is disproportionate retribution.

Sacking a city doesn't equate to that. You have no proof of the elven intention in the matter.

Sacking a capital equates to that. If you attack the capital of a nation, you are either intent on conquering it or destroying it completely. Since elves think of humans as a blight, there is really only one option.

You know nothing and you have no proof at all. Till more information is avaible i will not judge that conflict. However i do suspect that chantry and orlais  are the ones that started that war.

[MisterJB]

"sigh" What I reached is what is called "a logical conclusion". The sacking of Val Royeaux by the elves is an historical fact.

[Wulfram]

MisterJB wrote...

Sacking a capital equates to that. If you attack the capital of a nation, you are either intent on conquering it or destroying it completely. Since elves think of humans as a blight, there is really only one option.

Attacking a capital is the standard way to force a peace treaty, whether or not you seek that nation's total destruction.

[MisterJB]

You are correct.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

"sigh" What I reached is what is called "a logical conclusion". The sacking of Val Royeaux by the elves is an historical fact.

What you reach is a highly jumped-to conclusion, based on cooked and biased historical facts.

[MisterJB]

You seem to be forgetting that my claim of disproportionate retribution from the part of the elves was based entirely on the assumption that what the dalish claim is the absolute truth. That the Chantry started the war by sending templars to the Dales to convert them.

So yes, I do believe the elves are biased and I am glad you can finally admit this.
An historical fact like "The elves sacked Val Royeaux" can be no more biased than "the Soviet Union attacked Berlin" so long as no judgements are made.

Modifié par MisterJB, 23 août 2012 - 07:40 .

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

You seem to be forgetting that my claim of disproportionate retribution from the part of the elves was based entirely on the assumption that what the dalish claim is the absolute truth. That the Chantry started the war by sending templars to the Dales to convert them.

So yes, I do believe the elves are biased and I am glad you can finally admit this.
An historical fact like "The elves sacked Val Royeaux" can be no more biased than "the Soviet Union attacked Berlin" so long as no judgements are made.

You do realize that forcible conversion from the elves' point of view would be exactly the same as genocide, yes? And considering the Quickening effect, that could well be the complete truth. If the Chantry refused to stay out of the Dales and kept endangering the lifespan of every elf there, there was only one logical response, and that was to end the threat. Something that wouldn't have to involve killing all humans, just destroying their ability to fight; Orlais could have easily survived as a nation, but the humans would never allow such for the elves.

[MisterJB]

An attempt at conversion is not genocide. If the Chantry did send templars, the blame lies on the elves and their enormous racism that lead to them imposing a ridiculous isolationism policy that prevented any attempt at diplomacy or peaceful trading. If you don't strive to making friends of your neighbors, don't be surprised if they becomes enemies.
Even if there is such a thing as a Quickening, which is doubtful, then it's the price the elves have to pay for coexistance.
Not to mention that sending templars could mean anything. As far as we know, all the templars did was ensure missionaries would be allowed within elven borders as well as their safety once they were inside.

The logical response would have been increasing the number of Emerald Knights on the borders, not start a war with an Andrastian country. The humans allowed the Dales to exist as a nation for over three hundred years and an Exalted March was only called after the elves pushed well into human lands. The Fall of the Dales seems to be more of a case of righteous fury and vengeance than expansion.

[Xilizhra]

The humans were trying to make it cease to exist as a culturally independent nation, and probably a racially independent one as well. If I had to guess, I'd suspect the Chantry's push to convert the Dales were heavily laced with threats of conquest if they refused, a more logical explanation as to why the elves decided to attack.

And the Quickening is far too high a price to pay. The humans should never have encroached on elven lands at all. And nothing about said fury was righteous in the slightest.

[MisterJB]

The humans were attempting to share their culture. A Chantry or two, some missionaries, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The dwarves understand the principle of allowing concessions to mantain peace, it is one of the reasons the Shaperate allows Brother Burkel to open a Chantry.
The elves don't and that is one of the reasons they live in alienages.

The humans are part of Thedas and if the elves want to survive, they need redefine their priorities. A lasting homeland is far more important than some vaguely defined "immortality" whose existance is questionable. Isolationism has lead to nothing but pain and misery and the dalish should learn that quickly.

The elves refused all attempts at peaceful coexistance; denied help during the Second Blight and then pushed very far into human lands in an orgy of violence. The humans had every right to be angry.

[Fiacre]

If the Elves weren't interested in the Chantry, the Chantry had absolutely no right to try and force itself on them. As long as the Dales didn't actively hurt anyone, there was no reason to pester them with missionaries they didn't want or try to get trade agreements that they weren't interested in making -- there are by far enough human nations around with whom to trade.

And considering what happens if Burkel is actually allowed to open his Chantry, and the fact that *nothing* happens if you tell him to GTFO speaks against your argument regarding the dwarves.

And saying the humans were right with what they did doesn't make it so, just like saying the elves were right doesn't either. We don't know everything that happened and both of our sources are highly biased. I'd be surprised if either of them was really right.

[MisterJB]

Diplomacy and trading of resources are standard tools in keeping peace. The elves treated and still treat humans as either "children" or a disease. It is no wonder animosity between the races exists.
Had the elves allowed diplomats, merchants and missionaries within their borders and assisted the humans during the Second Blight, there is a good chance the Dales would still exist as an independent nation.

Conservative elements are always opposed to change. The dwarven government understand the importance of appeasing the Chantry and the humans. If anything, that speaks in favor of the idea that allowing the founding of a Chantry on the Dales would have gone a long way in quelling hostilities. The Chantry only considers a March after certain dwarves attack the faithfulls of Orzammar.

Is anyone ever right in a war? All I said was that the anger of the humans was understandable.

[Xilizhra]

The humans were attempting to share their culture. A Chantry or two, some missionaries, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There's everything wrong with that. The Chantry doesn't accept the presence of other gods, and is a powerful and expansionist political force. Acceptance is the first step on the road to attempted submission. Something that the dwarves may have realized belatedly with Burkel's attempt...

The humans are part of Thedas and if the elves want to survive, they need redefine their priorities. A lasting homeland is far more important than some vaguely defined "immortality" whose existance is questionable. Isolationism has lead to nothing but pain and misery and the dalish should learn that quickly.

No, human attacks have led to nothing but pain and misery, and their refusal to leave the elves alone. There may be pragmatic reasons for being less isolationist, but not moral ones; all the sins are human-originated.

Had the elves allowed diplomats, merchants and missionaries within their borders and assisted the humans during the Second Blight, there is a good chance the Dales would still exist as an independent nation.

Unlikely. They'd probably all be dying more quickly and trying to flee to another location to escape the Quickening plague.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...

There's everything wrong with that. The Chantry doesn't accept the presence of other gods, and is a powerful and expansionist political force. Acceptance is the first step on the road to attempted submission. Something that the dwarves may have realized belatedly with Burkel's attempt...

The Chantry spreads its teachings through peaceful means unless it is actively threteaned such as what happened with mages, Qunari and elves. Its involvement in any political war is marginal, at best.
What happened in Orzammar was a shameful display of intolerance.

No, human attacks have led to nothing but pain and misery, and their refusal to leave the elves alone. There may be pragmatic reasons for being less isolationist, but not moral ones; all the sins are human-originated.

The elve's refusal to treat humans as equals has lead to pain and misery. What is the elven justification for almost destroying Orlais, that humans attempted to share their faith? Commerce? Diplomacy?
How very moral of them. Maybe I should start attacking the Jehovah's Witnesses that bother me every Sunday morning.
Watching humans being slaugthered and do nothing to help was also quite moral of them. Did they think the Darkspawn wouldn't bother them? Or maybe they figured that if enough humans were slaugthered, they'd have better chances at expanding.

Unlikely. They'd probably all be dying more quickly and trying to flee to another location to escape the Quickening plague.

Don't use fairytales as proof.

Modifié par MisterJB, 23 août 2012 - 05:05 .

[Xilizhra]

The Chantry spreads its teachings through peaceful means unless it is actively threteaned such as what happened with mages, Qunari and elves. Its involvement in any political war is marginal, at best.
What happened in Orzammar was a shameful display of intolerance.

The Chantry was the one doing the threatening in the former and latter cases. As for Orzammar... probably inevitable. It's not like worse things don't happen every day with the casteless.

The elve's refusal to treat humans as equals has lead to pain and misery. What is the elven justification for almost destroying Orlais, that humans attempted to share their fath? Commerce? Diplomacy?

All of which, especially the first, are fatal.

How very moral of them. Maybe I should start attacking the Jehovah's Witnesses that bother me every Sunday morning.
Watching humans being slaugthered and do nothing to help was also quite moral of them. Did they think the Darkspawn wouldn't bother them? Or maybe they figured that if enough humans were slaugthered, they'd have better chances at expanding.

Please provide proof that the Dalish deliberately didn't contribute any Grey Wardens.

Don't use fairytales as proof.

I will use codex entries as evidence, same as you.