298 réponses à ce sujet

[iOnlySignIn]

MisterJB wrote...

You're not a Dalish, Tamlen is. Their combined view is that humans are plague carriers who stole their land and city elves are not true elves. They're really not a friendly bunch albeit some are more violent than others.

Yeah. A self-deluding racial superiority argument if I've ever seen one.

At least the Qunari believe that their ideas are what make them superior, not their ancestors.

[BlueMagitek]

Dorrieb wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...
I wouldn't say so.  I don't believe that Andraste foresaw that the Dalish would be so aggressive.  

Leaving aside the question of whether the Dalish were the aggressors or not (I say not!), what you believe or not is unimportant. The people of Thedas believe that Andraste's word is divine will (and yes, infallible, guy above). Their laws are based upon this belief. It is illegal to go against the word of Andraste.

When Andraste gave the Dales to the elves, this became a divine contract. She did not make it conditional upon the elves worshipping the Maker or not causing trouble with the neighbours. When the Chantry engineered the fall of the Dales, they were going against the (to them) divine word of Andraste herself, and they knew it. That is why they expunged the Book of Shartan from the rest, to obscure the fact that they had broken the very basis of their own belief, not because they were 'in a snit'.

Ah, unfortunately, those are no longer canon.  Dissidant verses, and what have you. 

The Elves, unfortunately, sacked her church.  What is most humorous to me is that the Dalish will likely not get back to the Dales, but the Dales given to the City Elves instead.  How fun. :happy:

[TEWR]

Everything's better with monkeys.

[Daerog]

I just want to throw in a correction.

Andraste did NOT give the elves the Dales. Her sons did. Andraste was killed before Tevinter lost the war, sort of. So, this had nothing to do with the Maker or the Chantry, so there was nothing divine about it, it was all political.

[Dorrieb]

Vandicus wrote...
Source?

Numerous instances in Dragon Age: Origins. For example:

a) It is explicitely stated that the legal basis for confining the mages in circles is that Andraste once said that 'magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him', which
shows that the word of Andraste constitutes the basis from which they derive living law, but
c) this could not be the case if the word of Andraste were held to be fallible, therefore
d) the word of Andraste is held by Thedans to be infallible.

Which makes sense, in a pseudo-mediaeval society in which laws derive from Divine Right.

[TobiTobsen]

Dorrieb wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
Source?

Numerous instances in Dragon Age: Origins. For example:

a) It is explicitely stated that the legal basis for confining the mages in circles is that Andraste once said that 'magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him', which
shows that the word of Andraste constitutes the basis from which they derive living law, but
c) this could not be the case if the word of Andraste were held to be fallible, therefore
d) the word of Andraste is held by Thedans to be infallible.

Which makes sense, in a pseudo-mediaeval society in which laws derive from Divine Right.

Legal basis for the chantry, who is in control of the circles.

I've yet to see one of the feudal lords to uphold the words of Andraste as the theodosian version of the Sharia.

[Dorrieb]

MisterJB wrote...
What you are trying to suggest is that, because of what Andraste said (nevermind that we don't know if Andraste herself promised the elves the Dales) now the humans can't retaliate against the elves regardless of how badly the latter acts?

No dear. I'm showing that there are different frameworks of law. There is natural law, which you and I believe to be right because we're enlightened 21st century people, and there's divine law (in this case, Andrastean law), which the Thedans believe in because they're a benighted pseudo-mediaeval society.

By Andrastean law, humans can bully or retaliate against the elves all they want. What they cannot legally do, is dispossess them of their land, because there is a known document written by Andraste herself (yes, we do know, it is mentioned) giving it to the elves in holy scripture. By Andrastean law, dispossessing the elves of the Dales was a crime against the Maker, and the Chantry knew it, which is why they tried to cover it up by hiding said document.

By natural law, dispossessing any people from their homeland, exterminating their culture, their society, and their way of life is generally held to be a very bad thing to do. Yes, even if they started it, which in this case they didn't. Not that natural law would matter to the Thedans, who believe in divine law, but it ought to matter to modern, enlightened us.

Modifié par Dorrieb, 02 décembre 2012 - 12:06 .

[General User]

Dorrieb wrote...

General User wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...
Or do your assumptions trump actual content?

Usually they wouldn't, but in this case they do. 

Sorry, they do or they don't. Being assumptions, in fact, they don't.

You can't take single events or lines of dialogue in isolation, you have to view them in the wider context of the story if you hope to reach a reasonable conclusion.

General User wrote...

That's because you are reading way too much into this particular piece of content. 

So you say. But you have no actual evidence to support your statement, in spite of all the talk about 'a great deal to suggest'. You just choose to interpret events differently by ignoring the available evidence, and you justify your interpretation by the absence of further evidence to the contrary. If there is a long-standing unspoken understanding between Ferelden and Orzammar that neither will press the matter, then no one would give 'half a nug fart' about what the Crown thought about anything, and still the fact remains that Ferelden does not legally recognise Orzammar. Just because you didn't see it mentioned again doesn't mean it isn't still so.

  I didn't see it because it wasn't there.  The Crown of Ferelden has zero presence within, let alone control over, Orzammar.  And the rulers of Orzammar pay zero deference, let alone tribute to, the Crown of Ferelden. The mutual sovereignty of the two is state of affairs is very much acknowledged by both sides.  The dwarves do so happily and freely and even by Loghain's envoy does so when pressed.

General User wrote...

it was still the Old Dalish who deliberately chose to pursue a policy of hostile isolationism.

  

Possibly not the best policy, but it was still their right to pursue it in accordance with the natural law principle of self-determination. It certainly doesn't justify the loss of their sovereignty.

It's a bit more complex than that.  While the Old Dlaish may have had the "right" to embrace such an idiotically hostile series of policies, they most certainly did not have the right avoid the natural consequences of those policies, namely antagonizing all their neighbors by appearing as a hostile power and a threat to Thedas at large. 

General User wrote...
Injustice or not, no "statute of limitations" is even needed if subsequent events render the initial point moot.

Natural law, which you claim to understand so well and accused me of not understanding, would disagree with you there.

How do you figure?  I'm not saying the Dalish elves can't still feel raw about it, but time goes on and things change.  The Dales are now someone else's homeland, a people who have been living there more than twice as long as the elves ever did by the way.  The land rightly belongs to the people who have made their homes there for generation after generation.

Numerous instances in Dragon Age: Origins. For example:

a) It is explicitely stated that the legal basis for confining the mages in circles is that Andraste once said that 'magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him', which
shows that the word of Andraste constitutes the basis from which they derive living law, but
c) this could not be the case if the word of Andraste were held to be fallible, therefore
d) the word of Andraste is held by Thedans to be infallible.

Which makes sense, in a pseudo-mediaeval society in which laws derive from Divine Right.

Point "a" doesn't mean as much as you might think.  Many religions hold that while their respective holy scriptures are above reproach (though still open to interpretation… by the right people of course), the actual prophets or messengers were still fallible human beings, actually it's quite common.  And even, with a doctrine of infallibility in place, nothing would stop the Chantry from taking the same line the Catholic Church did and claiming that even decisions made by someone who is infallible could still be revisited by someone equally infallible, ie by the Divine of the Chantry.

Modifié par General User, 02 décembre 2012 - 01:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Gyrefalcon wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

ShadowLordXII wrote...

It just feels strange to fight for mage freedom and completely overlook elves.

Something the templars and mages can work together on: overturning the city elf rebellion!


I take your point though and have thought something similar. While you can affect (minor) change in the alienage in DAO, I found it unfortunate that we couldn't really do anything for them in DA2. In fact, the visible scope of Kirkwall's alienage was much smaller than I felt it should have been, especialy compared with Denerim's.

I am actually hoping DA3:  Inquisition will transition into the Elven rebellion for DA4.  (And please, oh please, let us be able to play elves again in the next one!)

If either one of those rebellions was a doomed one, I'd honestly be impressed with Bioware.

[Herr Uhl]

General User wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It can be laid on the doorstep of the hostile, expansionist religion of the Chantry and the equally bad if not worse policies of Orlais. Isolationism lacks the aggression of expansionism, and a violent response to it is wholly unjustified.

My personal theory of what sparked it is zealous missionaries that got thrown out. The next missionary got a templar escort that wouldn't take no for an answer.

Presto, fighting. And it would account for the "and then they sent templars" thing.

I would agree.  With the addendum that when missionaries get "thrown out" in the 1960's Vegas sense of the term (ie, they have the bruises to show for it... and those are the lucky ones) it is real easy for things to get out of control real fast.

I don't think it was that bad to begin with. Idle threats would probably be enough to warrant an escort. Templars and Dalish Warriors aren't really reknowned for their mild mannered and diplomatic ways.

[Herr Uhl]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gyrefalcon wrote...

I am actually hoping DA3:  Inquisition will transition into the Elven rebellion for DA4.  (And please, oh please, let us be able to play elves again in the next one!)

If either one of those rebellions was a doomed one, I'd honestly be impressed with Bioware.

Playing on the loosing side would be interesting, yes. But I don't think there'd be much commercial appeal to it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gyrefalcon wrote...

I am actually hoping DA3:  Inquisition will transition into the Elven rebellion for DA4.  (And please, oh please, let us be able to play elves again in the next one!)

If either one of those rebellions was a doomed one, I'd honestly be impressed with Bioware.

Playing on the loosing side would be interesting, yes. But I don't think there'd be much commercial appeal to it.

Maybe, maybe not. You must be familiar with the phrase 'it's not about where you go, but how you get there'? Well, when a major faction declines, how they fail can often be more effective in shaping the post-disruption order than whether they failed.

Some rebellions achieve their goals even when they militarily or operationally fail because of how they went about it. Others spark a popular backlash so powerful that the insurgents are far worse off than when they started. Two examples from American history are the civil rights movement (which, despite frequent arrests and break-ups of marches and others, ultimately made progress in gaining and expanding civil liberties) versus the anarchist and communist movements of the 'teens and twenties (in which bombings and other violence sparked an anti-communist, anti-anarchist backlash that endures to this day).

While Bioware has frequently let us pick our morality as the wining faction and shown the differences in such, they've yet to do one in which the morality of the loser spurred consequences of its own. I think they could surprise everyone, even the players, if the clear consequences of their actions could achieve or ruin the intents that were in mind when the choices were made.

[iOnlySignIn]

Faerunner wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

You're not a Dalish, Tamlen is. Their combined view is that humans are plague carriers who stole their land and city elves are not true elves. They're really not a friendly bunch albeit some are more violent than others.

Yeah. A self-deluding racial superiority argument if I've ever seen one.

So humans didn't steal elven land? 

Nope.

Unless you want to call every civilization that ever existed in every universe thieves. But then the word thief loses its meaning.

[MisterJB]

Dorrieb wrote...
No dear.

Spare me.

By Andrastean law, humans can bully or retaliate against the elves all they want. What they cannot legally do, is dispossess them of their land, because there is a known document written by Andraste herself (yes, we do know, it is mentioned) giving it to the elves in holy scripture. By Andrastean law, dispossessing the elves of the Dales was a crime against the Maker, and the Chantry knew it, which is why they tried to cover it up by hiding said document.

First, where is it mentioned?
Second, as the Maker's chosen on Thedas, the White Divine can interpret the Chant just as easily as the Black Divine of Tevinter has done for centuries to justify mages in power. All she has to say is that attacking the seat of the Chantry and worshipping pagan gods is an even greater crime against the Maker.
And it is just as likely they removed the Canticle of Shartan after the elves sacked Orlais and did it out of fury.

By natural law, dispossessing any people from their homeland, exterminating their culture, their society, and their way of life is generally held to be a very bad thing to do. Yes, even if they started it, which in this case they didn't. Not that natural law would matter to the Thedans, who believe in divine law, but it ought to matter to modern, enlightened us.

First of all, it is far more likely the elves started it than Orlais which is a subject I expanded previously in this thread and I don't feel like repeating myself.
Now, regardless of who started, it is an indisputable historical fact that the elven pushed well into human lands, going so far as to sack Val-Royeaux, well before the humans retaliated with an Exhalted March.
Over two thousands years of racial hatred spilling over in war? It is naive to believe the elves didn't commit attrocities to the orlesians. With this in mind, I find it hard to truly censure the humans for retaliating with righteous fury.

[Xilizhra]

Over two thousands years of racial hatred spilling over in war? It is naive to believe the elves didn't commit attrocities to the orlesians. With this in mind, I find it hard to truly censure the humans for retaliating with righteous fury.

We have no historical information about what actions the elves committed; what we do know is that the entire victory condition of the humans at the end was an atrocity.

[Herr Uhl]

Xilizhra wrote...

Over two thousands years of racial hatred spilling over in war? It is naive to believe the elves didn't commit attrocities to the orlesians. With this in mind, I find it hard to truly censure the humans for retaliating with righteous fury.

We have no historical information about what actions the elves committed; what we do know is that the entire victory condition of the humans at the end was an atrocity.

Their refusal to help with the blight is one thing at least. Not so much an atrocity as being dicks though.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...

Over two thousands years of racial hatred spilling over in war? It is naive to believe the elves didn't commit attrocities to the orlesians. With this in mind, I find it hard to truly censure the humans for retaliating with righteous fury.

We have no historical information about what actions the elves committed; what we do know is that the entire victory condition of the humans at the end was an atrocity.

You're being naive on purpose. Elves were enslaved by the humans magisters of Tevinter for centuries, they believe humans are a plague on Thedas. Take a look into our world's history and see the kind of actions that are commited in war when you give free reign to hatred so deeply ingrained.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Over two thousands years of racial hatred spilling over in war? It is naive to believe the elves didn't commit attrocities to the orlesians. With this in mind, I find it hard to truly censure the humans for retaliating with righteous fury.

We have no historical information about what actions the elves committed; what we do know is that the entire victory condition of the humans at the end was an atrocity.

You're being naive on purpose. Elves were enslaved by the humans magisters of Tevinter for centuries, they believe humans are a plague on Thedas. Take a look into our world's history and see the kind of actions that are commited in war when you give free reign to hatred so deeply ingrained.

In other words, you still don't know; certainly you know no specifics. And regardless of what happened, the Orlesian response was grossly disproportionate.
In any case, humans are a plague on Thedas, at least if the Quickening can be proven true. And if the Quickening is proven true, and if humans are in fact the sole cause of age-related death among elves... well, I'm sure you have solutions for those who are inherently dangerous even through no fault of their own.

[zsom]

I think we should concentrate on one conflict and not try to solve everything in one game.

Also, I think history should have already taught us that "de jure" solutions don't really work out well. And while it could be ignored in a game, I feel it would be too much unrealistic. Like synthesis in ME.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
In other words, you still don't know; certainly you know no specifics. And regardless of what happened, the Orlesian response was grossly disproportionate.

In other words, I am willing to accept reality while you'd rather pretend your favorite race is unaffected by negative emotions.
And all the orlesians did was what the elves tried to do to them. It wasn't forgiving but it certainly was not disproportionate retribution.

In any case, humans are a plague on Thedas, at least if the Quickening can be proven true. And if the Quickening is proven true, and if humans are in fact the sole cause of age-related death among elves... well, I'm sure you have solutions for those who are inherently dangerous even through no fault of their own.

Your elven supremacy is showing again. So, your way to determine the worth of someone's life is through longevity?
I don't think so. Even if true; which I doubt; the only thing this "quickening" does is equalize the lifespan of humans and elves. I don't see why I should hurt an entire species just so another can enjoy an unresonable privilege. Elves don't need to live forever at the expense of humanity.

[Zerker]

If elves do rise to power; that would make Thedas more interesting, may be. Aside from that, I'm really bored to see elves and dwarves in, well, everything. I don't care much for them.

Qunari on the other hand, is a real success. Elves can go to hell, lets focus on the Qunari.

[Xilizhra]

In other words, I am willing to accept reality while you'd rather pretend your favorite race is unaffected by negative emotions.
And all the orlesians did was what the elves tried to do to them. It wasn't forgiving but it certainly was not disproportionate retribution.

It was exceedingly disproportionate retribution; you still don't have any proof that the elves intended to conquer and occupy Orlais, and kill or drive out every single human.

Your elven supremacy is showing again. So, your way to determine the worth of someone's life is through longevity?
I don't think so. Even if true; which I doubt; the only thing this "quickening" does is equalize the lifespan of humans and elves. I don't see why I should hurt an entire species just so another can enjoy an unresonable privilege. Elves don't need to live forever at the expense of humanity.

To remove immortality is to kill someone, or at least infect them with an always-fatal disease. And you seem to believe that the natural human lifespan is the best for everyone and that it gives you the right to spread your plague around as a means of taking supreme power. If a means of removing the Quickening effect can be found, then let it be done; otherwise, humans will continue to pose an inherent threat by virtue of their very existence and need to have that dealt with in some manner. I recall Dave of Canada mentioning that plague victims had no rights... but I doubt I'll go so far.
And life is not an unreasonable privilege.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 02 décembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[In Exile]

Dorrieb wrote...
No dear. I'm showing that there are different frameworks of law. There is natural law, which you and I believe to be right because we're enlightened 21st century people, and there's divine law (in this case, Andrastean law), which the Thedans believe in because they're a benighted pseudo-mediaeval society.

I feel compelled to point out that divine law is a type of natural law theory. And there wre quite a  lot of natural law theories out there, most of which do not actually start from the POV that natural rights exist (e.g. legal interpretativism).

By Andrastean law, humans can bully or retaliate against the elves all they want. What they cannot legally do, is dispossess them of their land, because there is a known document written by Andraste herself (yes, we do know, it is mentioned) giving it to the elves in holy scripture. By Andrastean law, dispossessing the elves of the Dales was a crime against the Maker, and the Chantry knew it, which is why they tried to cover it up by hiding said document.

That's silly. Legal reasoning is fluid. Someone will just read-in an implied covenant that you can't rebell against Andraste herself without rescinding their contract, and there you go.

Coming up with grounds to say that a contract isn't binding isn't very hard, especially since there is a viable argument on the facts that the Dalish breached it.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...=
In any case, humans are a plague on Thedas, at least if the Quickening can be proven true. And if the Quickening is proven true, and if humans are in fact the sole cause of age-related death among elves... well, I'm sure you have solutions for those who are inherently dangerous even through no fault of their own.

Given that the overwhelming evidence is that the elves lives are lengthy because of blood magic... it's hard to say how much of that is "quickening" and how much of that is, well, blood magic. Certainly the elves believe it, but the only example we have of real "long-life" that isn't attributable to not living in squalor in the alienage is Zathrian, and we know how that dude stayed alive.