Dorrieb wrote...
General User wrote...
I'm following what you're saying. I just don't agree that's such is the case at all. The only evidence I see that could even vaguely support anything of the sort was the line a single over-zealous envoy. And since there was absolutely nothing that could be said to back that up, and a great deal to suggest the opposite was the case...
A great deal of what, where? I can point to an actual line of dialogue in the game in which a representative of Ferelden stated clearly that his was their official view. Do tell, where in the game did you hear anyone from Ferelden clearly stating the opposite? Or do your assumptions trump actual content?
Usually they wouldn't, but in this case they do. That's because you are reading way too much into this particular piece of content.
I saw a Loghain envoy attempt to assert authority over Orzammar, then I saw the gate guard of Orzammar tell him to kick rocks. Which, after a bit of protest the envoy did, actions speaking louder as it were. Then I went into Orzammar and saw that from the lowest duster to the King himself, no one gave half a nug fart about what the Crown of Ferelden or any office thereof, thought about anything, namely because they were completely absent. Sorry, but it was what it was: Loghain sent an envoy to Orzammar and the chap over asserted himself and had to be put back into his place, nothing more.
General User wrote...
What actually happened was the old Dalish picked a fight with their neighbors... and lost.
From the wiki: '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.' The Journal entry confirms this, and it is consistent with Sister Petrice's behaviour in DA2. The elves themselves claim so. You may choose to prefer your own interpretation of things, but don't confuse it with fact.
I'm not claiming the Orlesians or the Chantry were wearing white hats during the Dalish War. Although I will admit that I very much doubt that their hats were as black as the Dalish elves like to think they were. Rather that, no matter what, it was still the Old Dalish who deliberately chose to pursue a policy of hostile isolationism. Thus the lion's share, of the blame for the deterioration of relations between the Old Dales and all their human neighbors can be laid squarely on the elves doorstep.
General User wrote...
I see what you're saying but you need to see just how irrelevant it is. The Dalish elves are not indispute with the rightful rulers of Thedas over any particular piece of property, instead the Dalish claim that they have the right to live by their own laws and customs no matter where they might be. And they are more than willing to use hideous levels of violence to assert this utterly fraudulent right.
No, the Dalish are in dispute over a very particular piece of property which was given to them by Andraste herself, and although they themselves do not recognise her authority as a basis for law, it is divine will to the humans. As long as this injustice prevails, yes, they do claim the right to hold on to their own laws and customs, as the alternative would be to submit to injustice, which is counter to natural law.
General User wrote...
That was 700 years ago. A lot has changed.
Human laws haven't. Andraste's word is still held as divine law. The Dales that she granted to the elves unconditionally are in the hands of humans in direct defiance of their own divine law. If they want to change the basis for their laws to something other than Andraste, fine, but as things are now Andraste's decree is clear and unconditional, and they are in violation of it. As for natural law, as long as the dispossessed people are still a people and still dispossessed, there is no statute of limitations on a historical injustice.
Injustice or not, no "statute of limitations" is even needed if subsequent events render the initial point moot. Like for example if 700 years were to pass and the conquered lands were resettled and are now the homeland of a whole new group of people.
Now, if the Dalish ever wished to dispute the ownership of the Dales following their conquest then spreading out to other lands and menacing the populations thereof for the past 700 years was just about the worst possible way to go about it. Not only did they manage to further (possibly permanently) alienate just about everyone who might ever wish to help them regain their supposed homeland, but depending on how completely the Dalish have abandoned the Dales, one could even argue that the Dalish have already forfeited any just claim they may ever have had to regain possession.
If the Dalish wish to hold onto their customs and culture, that is their choice and indeed even their right. However it is by no means an unqualified right. In particular, the Dalish most certainly do not have the right to flaunt the laws and disregard the authorities of the lands they pass through. If they wish to go elsewhere and do whatever it is they do ('frolic,' according to Varric) that, of course, would no one's business but their own.
And to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Andrasteism has no real doctrine of infallibility for Andraste herself. So why shouldn't Andraste's successors correct any (perfectly understandable, of course) mistakes their prophet happened to make? Or simply revisit decisions that may have been right at the time but no longer seem to fit as time goes by.
Modifié par General User, 02 décembre 2012 - 12:26 .
Retour en haut
