298 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

Can you bring a specific example of the chantry being discriminate towards city elves? I'm pretty sure I even saw elven priestesses... And again, we're talking about a feudal setting. You'll have a problem improving the condition of the human peasents, let alone solve the racial problems... These are issues that were "solved" IRL in the last century (thoguh not completely) through the continuation of centuries long processes starting with the magna carta and emancipation. It's not something you can expect to solve with a simple click of a button. The dalish are mostly hostile towards outsiders, and city elves? what you're just going to abolish the alienage? which is more about trying to keep in touch with their traditions than to coral them together. Perhaps you want to rebuild arlathan? which there's no reason that it won't end up like it's predeccessor.

First you need to deal with the qunari&andrastians religions, the rest will sort itself out.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
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.

Someone tries to kill me, I defend myself and kill them instead. And you call that "disproportionate retribution".
Elvesn hate humans and they sacked the capital of Orlais. If you want to keep fooling yourself that they were merciful or anything similar, be my guest. You can bring a horse to water...

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.

Longer longevity also does not give the elves the right to be the supreme race in Thedas. The Right of Conquest gives humans the right to be the supreme race in Thedas, however.
Regardless, this is all a moot point. If there ever was any "elven immortality", it was through blood magic.
Maybe the Chantry is right and that was the part of their culture they were so keen in restoring in the Dales.

Choosing eternal life over a reasonably long one + the freedom of an entire species of people is an unresonable privilege.

[Dorrieb]

In Exile wrote...
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).

We can take it as given that I'm referring to its common usage as the doctrine that rights are immanent in nature as advocated in the Declarations of the Rights of Man and the American Declaration of Independence, and not confuse the issue.

In Exile wrote...
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.

Which is exactly what they did. That kind of thing is not done lightly, however, especially under divine law, and it sets a dangerous precedent. They were unsure enough about the legality of the process that they hid the evidence of there being a process at all.

[Herr Uhl]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Then why did they invade? If they had no interest in conquest they could just have watched their own borders.

[In Exile]

Dorrieb wrote...
We can take it as given that I'm referring to its common usage as the doctrine that rights are immanent in nature as advocated in the Declarations of the Rights of Man and the American Declaration of Independence, and not confuse the issue.

That's fair, but not being an American myself, my mind goes to quite other considerations when we talk about "natural law". And it's certainly not a position that, if we're speaking about it from a position of modernity, is necessarily taken for granted. It's like corrective justice, as a basis for private law.

Which is exactly what they did. That kind of thing is not done lightly, however, especially under divine law, and it sets a dangerous precedent. They were unsure enough about the legality of the process that they hid the evidence of there being a process at all.

At least according to Coke's treatises, the view of natural law as divine law was (at least) alive in the UK during the 17th century, and I believe it was also the case that there was an operative doctrine of precedent. The idea that law is immanent and granted by God doesn't make it immune to arguments that the previous law "missed" the correct principle, and that the true principle is whatever the current judge is articulating it to be, which is exactly what the Chantry could have done.

All of this is to say that as long as they believed that the Dales broke their divine convenat, then coming up with a viable and defensible divine law justification is, in fact, quite simple for them to do.

Because, to put it more clearly, belief that the result is right typically preceeds the legal analysis.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 décembre 2012 - 05:43 .

[Dorrieb]

General User wrote...
A)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. C) The mutual sovereignty of the two is state of affairs is very much acknowledged by both sides.

 

A) and do not prove C)

General User wrote...
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. 

 I'm not saying the Dalish elves can't still feel raw about it, but time goes on and things change.

Out of curiousity, why did you cite natural law only to so completely reject it?

General User wrote...
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.

Not when it's the basis from which laws are derived.

[Dorrieb]

In Exile wrote...
At least according to Coke's treatises, the view of natural law as divine law was (at least) alive in the UK during the 17th century, and I believe it was also the case that there was an operative doctrine of precedent. The idea that law is immanent and granted by God doesn't make it immune to arguments that the previous law "missed" the correct principle, and that the true principle is whatever the current judge is articulating it to be, which is exactly what the Chantry could have done.

It is exactly what they did.

In Exile wrote...
All of this is to say that as long as they believed that the Dales broke their divine convenat, then coming up with a viable and defensible divine law justification is, in fact, quite simple for them to do.

Because, to put it more clearly, belief that the result is right typically preceeds the legal analysis.

Correct. But again, not done lightly. Their belief that they were justified in declaring the covenant broken was shaky enough that they'd rather hide the issue than face up to it. Which shows that even in their own minds they were nervous about countermanding holy writ.

[Fast Jimmy]

This conversation is a terrible example of human nature.

Why does any action taken by people dead for hundreds of years, regardless of their race, have any bearing on the right for a group of people to have their own nation?

Casting blame for actions taken by humans or elves ages ago does not preclude the fact that the lot of Elves in the world is to either A) be born a Mage and live in a cushy, but confined life live in the slums, rarely ever to have the ability or means to move out or up in the world or C) be a Dalish, and essentially live a life of constant migration and wandering. That's not a great lot in life to have. Every other race has the ability to put down roots, to determine their own fate and to govern themselves.

Does that mean the Elves DESERVE that right, as a God-given one? No, it doesn't. But if given the chance to do so for the Elves, my character would take it every time. The Dalish boon in DA:O should be made canon, just for the story-telling ability alone, instead of being made totally ignored. Another problem with the Save Import system and the limited story-telling it imposes.

[MisterJB]

What about those who killed the Dalish?
Regardless, King Alistair suggests something terrible transpired im saves where the Dalish Boon is granted. I wonder if they lost the land already

[TCBC_Freak]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This conversation is a terrible example of human nature.

Why does any action taken by people dead for hundreds of years, regardless of their race, have any bearing on the right for a group of people to have their own nation?

Casting blame for actions taken by humans or elves ages ago does not preclude the fact that the lot of Elves in the world is to either A) be born a Mage and live in a cushy, but confined life live in the slums, rarely ever to have the ability or means to move out or up in the world or C) be a Dalish, and essentially live a life of constant migration and wandering. That's not a great lot in life to have. Every other race has the ability to put down roots, to determine their own fate and to govern themselves.

Does that mean the Elves DESERVE that right, as a God-given one? No, it doesn't. But if given the chance to do so for the Elves, my character would take it every time. The Dalish boon in DA:O should be made canon, just for the story-telling ability alone, instead of being made totally ignored. Another problem with the Save Import system and the limited story-telling it imposes.

Just want to point out that David G has said in the past that the Dalish live the way they do not because they have to, they choose to. For many reason including safety. That's something that we humans here on the forum forget about the Dalish, they don't want to settle down because any number of things could end their culture, natural disaster, war, plague. Spread out as they are even a whole tribe could be destroyed and the Dalish still go on.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 03 décembre 2012 - 01:46 .

[TEWR]

Xilizhra wrote...

humans will continue to pose an inherent threat by virtue of their very existence and need to have that dealt with in some manner

One could cite this as a counterpoint to Pro-Templar peoples' justification for the Circle.

"Mages are dangerous to society by their existence!"

"So are humans to the Elves!"

[panamakira]

<------- Yeah I've always felt terrible about my City Elf not being treated right.

I mean if you're an Elf and a Mage. Let me just say this. THEDAS HATES YOU.

[Gyrefalcon]

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.

Didn't we just experience this (as an option at least) in DA3?  I would not call being run off into the hills and having to abandon your home "winning".  Survival certainly has its merits but if you sided with the mages, you had to leave town pretty quickly. 

However, it is entirely possible that Bioware might give us a Les Miserables style storyline.  (Or a Firefly Browncoats one if you prefer.)  David Gaider is quick to state that he loves bittersweet endings the best.  And the efforts of the Bioware team certainly branches them away from the myriad of games that offer ego-boosting heroic games where your actions never have any serious consequences, you are always a hero even if you wander around assassinating or stealing from innocent people.  Breaking away from the pack seems to be their goal, but it is a difficult thing to see what sort of story you can spin that has real drama without losing your audience in the video game media.

The question of elven revolution may or may not be dealt with in the next upcoming game or the one after that.  We have the gun on the mantleplace of "the elves should rise up and help us (the mages)".  It is an incidental line but allows for a logical set-up for a two-for-one revolution.  (And let's face it, with the Hobbit movie coming out, they might opt for the multiple war concept as an homage or just a fun idea.)  Likewise, either one or both could fail, which would REALLY change the face of Thedas.  Or they could succeed all too well and cause an intregal shift in the world dynamics.

Anyway, playing as the head of a desperate faction on the losing end of a conflict is not out of the realm of possibility.  But I guess we might get a few more hints in January.

[MisterJB]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

humans will continue to pose an inherent threat by virtue of their very existence and need to have that dealt with in some manner

One could cite this as a counterpoint to Pro-Templar peoples' justification for the Circle.

"Mages are dangerous to society by their existence!"

"So are humans to the Elves!"

Humans are dangerous to elves because the relationship between these two races have been hostile more times than not, not simply because they exist.
The simple existence of mages is dangerous to mundanes because of demonic interference which is outside of their control.

[Todd23]

MisterJB wrote...

Todd23 wrote...
The divine at that time was racist, removed any help elves gave from the chant.

You're getting it backwards. The Divine removed the Canticle of Shartan after the elves sacked Val-Royeaux. They were understandably angry with the elves.

You think it's a coincidence that the elves claimed being harrased and starting to meet military force?  People keep saying that Tevinter getting them was their fault.  And that they should have put up a fight from the begining rather than seclude themselves.  And now when they take the fight to the new aggresers people are saying they're in the wrong?  Please, they've been screwed by humans so long.  I'm surprised they're not coming up with some sort of weapon or spell that could kill off humans in the next war.

I think that isolating yourselves on the basis that your neighbors are culturally and intelectually inferior and spread pestilence while refusing any attempt at peaceful discourse is asking for trouble.
There is a huge difference between: "Let's fight this empire that threatens our freedom" and "Creators, these humans are annoying with their commerce and diplomacy and sharing of cultures. Let's butcher the lot of them."

Isolating themselves was a peacful resolution.  It was their land then some people show up, take some of it.  And when the elves realized being near them causes them to die, they basically let them have that land and kept to themselves.  I don't see how this constituted an attack.

And even though she removed it afterwards, it still wasn't right.  "These people are earning hate from humans... let's remove their ancestor's help from history!"

[Medhia Nox]

It's amazing the level of outrage over a fantasy race. I'd expect a lot of people to be fighting for the rights of real world populations still under the yoke of oppressive conquering peoples.

False sentimentality about a fake peple is easier and has less accountability of course.

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

Humans are dangerous to elves because the relationship between these two races have been hostile more times than not, not simply because they exist.

Both, if we're to believe the Elven history on the loss of their immortality -- and there's been nothing to disprove it yet.

So I can see why the Elves of the Dales wanted no humans in their lands. They were a threat to their lives by nature of their existence, just as pro-Templar people say the Mages are a threat to the lives of the populus.

[Todd23]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Humans are dangerous to elves because the relationship between these two races have been hostile more times than not, not simply because they exist.

Both, if we're to believe the Elven history on the loss of their immortality -- and there's been nothing to disprove it yet.

So I can see why the Elves of the Dales wanted no humans in their lands. They were a threat to their lives by nature of their existence, just as pro-Templar people say the Mages are a threat to the lives of the populus.

Except the humans really are a threat.  And for real reasons.

[Naughty Bear]

Will feminism be a problem in the DA universe?

[MisterJB]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Both, if we're to believe the Elven history on the loss of their immortality -- and there's been nothing to disprove it yet.

So I can see why the Elves of the Dales wanted no humans in their lands. They were a threat to their lives by nature of their existence, just as pro-Templar people say the Mages are a threat to the lives of the populus.

You don't need to disprove something that is tought to be impossible. The burden of proof falls on the elves and they have zero. The only form of immortality we see in the series has its origins on blood magic.
That the acient elves used blood magic to extend their lifespan and knowledge about it was lost during their enslavement, I might actually believe.
And not wanting human immigration, that's fine. Somewhat xenophobic but it can be excused.
Refusing all offers of friendship and pretend that your neighboring nations don't exist, is immoral and stupid. Cutting a bloody path through Orlais is worse.

Modifié par MisterJB, 04 décembre 2012 - 12:26 .

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

You don't need to disprove something that is tought to be impossible. The burden of proof falls on the elves and they have zero.

You realize that's the exact same mentality a fair deal of Native Americans have to deal with today at times? Anyone claiming to be one today is often required to "prove" it by a myriad of methods, when U.S. society made an effort to stamp out Native American culture.

It's hard for someone to know about Native American culture these days unless they can find other Native Americans. Not impossible -- there are books on the culture, but not many I've found -- but still, it's not easy for someone to get in touch with that culture because of what the U.S did.

Native American children were taken to "schools" that were designed to "educate the savages" into being more white. Then you have incidents like the Grattan massacre as it's commonly known where a drunken translator frequently mistranslated what Conquering Bear -- the Brule Lakota chief that signed the Fort Laramie Treaty -- said, leaving out important bits or twisting words into things that were never said/implied/whatever. That resulted in shots being fired from the nearby soldiers which prompted the violence to ensue.

But even before that, a cow had fallen behind a Mormon caravan and the Native Americans -- who were promised to have been delivered supplies so they could live, yet had gone days without their latest shipment having arrived -- took it in. One warrior from a tribe that Conquering Bear had no authority over killed it and ate it, and when the commanding officer said he should be handed over Conquering Bear made note of that aspect of their culture -- a chief cannot have authority over someone from another tribe. 

Later on, Conquering Bear offered the owner of the cow four horses as compensation. The Mormon owner refused, demanding actual payment. The commanding officer approved of his eager lieutenant's -- Grattan -- desire to take a detachment to apprehend the warrior from another tribe. Yet this was against the rules of the 1851 treaty signed at Fort Laramie.

A lot of Native Americans made overtures of peace since they were occupying the same land with the white men consistently despite seeing the white men as nuisances and invaders -- and they were invaders, objectively speaking. And even so, they were betrayed by the U.S government, their culture reviled and all but destroyed, and they were labeled as the problem.

It's completely unfair to say "The burden of proof is on you to prove your culture and heritage right" if society has made it a point to stamp out your culture. And Tevinter/the Chantry have done exactly that.

The only form of immortality we see in the series has its origins on blood magic.
That the acient elves used blood magic to extend their lifespan and knowledge about it was lost during their enslavement, I might actually believe.

Or something about humans might've caused their blood magic spells -- if they did rely on them, because while likely Zathrian's is actually an odd example -- to fail.

Reason I say Zathrian's is an odd example is because, well, if Zathrian's spell was the method then how would all of the ancient Elves have been immortal when there's only one spirit of the forest/land/mountains/sea/rivers/etc. per... well... all of those things I listed?

Because the Grand Oak tells us that the spirit of the forest has been gone for some time. He doesn't say "a spirit of the forest". He says "the spirit of the forest".

And not wanting human immigration, that's fine. Somewhat xenophobic but it can be excused.
Refusing all offers of friendship and pretend that your neighboring nations don't exist, is immoral and stupid.

Friendship in this case would require humans to come into the Elven lands. You've said before that the Elves should've "allowed one Chantry to be formed". The problem with that is the Chantry has never shown an inclination to not further their religious territory. 

Emperor Drakon organized a series of Exalted Marches on neighboring city-states to bring them to his control and under a common faith, then began building the Grand Cathedral. We also have lore telling us that he wanted to go to the Free Marches and do the same thing, but the Dales stood in his way of that.

Orzammar has a Chantry brother trying to "convince the Dwarves to worship the obvious Maker" when the Dwarves never said they don't believe the Maker exists, only that they don't see a point in worshipping him because the Stone is all around them and known to exist.

And then there are the Chantry missionaries sent into the Dales.

At no point do we ever see the Chantry being religiously tolerant of other peoples' beliefs. When Tevinter proposed an alternative interpretation, the Chantry got so pissed off that Exalted Marches followed suit. Sure, Tevinter ended up using that interpretation to justify corruption once more, but it was still a valid interpretation -- Mages should help the populus, Andraste may have just been a powerful mage, etc.

So even though they used the former to argue "We do that best by being in politics" the actual interpretation that magic should be used to benefit society is valid.

Cutting a bloody path through Orlais is worse.

Not if Orlais/the Chantry struck the first blow.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 décembre 2012 - 02:07 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

When did BSN accept it as fact that Elves were ever immortal?

[TEWR]

For me, I'm not accepting it as fact that they were naturally immortal. I'm only saying that there's nothing in-game or out to disprove the idea that they might've been at this point in time.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 décembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

There is nothing in-game that indicates that they were. The fact that they aren't now, indicates that they never were.

[Vandicus]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Humans are dangerous to elves because the relationship between these two races have been hostile more times than not, not simply because they exist.

Both, if we're to believe the Elven history on the loss of their immortality -- and there's been nothing to disprove it yet.

So I can see why the Elves of the Dales wanted no humans in their lands. They were a threat to their lives by nature of their existence, just as pro-Templar people say the Mages are a threat to the lives of the populus.

Or we could liken it to the Chantry belief that if they spread the Chantry to every corner of Thedas the Maker will return to them.

If the Chantry were to use this as justification to use violence to force everyone to worship the Maker to achieve an eternal paradise on Thedas, would anyone(on these forums) support them? An unsubstantiated(but impossible to prove or disprove) belief is used to justify heinous action. Now if we actually believed this to be true, or if we "knew" it to be true, our perspective might change somewhat, after all an end to all violence and suffering forever after seems like it might be worth a little violence and suffering in the now, but from an outsider perspective(one who does not "know" or believe) this will always appear to be unjustified violence.

*EDIT

Basically if we accept belief as justification, the logic becomes very twisted. Establishing a principle of accepting widely-held beliefs as justification, we also conclude that the Chantry will achieve eternal paradise with the spread of the Chant, which justifies their conquest of the Dales as a necessity to achieve this god-ruled utopia and which is the only solution that would also address the inequity of the mutual exclusivity of elven immortality and human existence, since in this theoretical paradise the elves would be worshippers of the Maker and immortal as well, without needing to wipe out the humans.

Modifié par Vandicus, 04 décembre 2012 - 01:33 .