294 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Sutekh wrote...
There's little difference between not having a right by law, and not having it de facto. The result is the same. Whether it's written or not, if an elf says humans are lazy and is heard by a human, there will be retaliation. And the human will not be punished for beating the elf, even though I'm pretty sure Fereldan laws forbid the random beating of citizens.

On the same note, having the right to buy a house outside the Alienage means little if it will be burned or its occupants killed. In practice, it's the exact equivalent of not being allowed to buy a house. I'd even say it's even worse, because it gives the illusion of right, and you cant' even complain because then people (and governments) will use the exact same argument you're using: "What are you complaining about? You're free to buy a house wherever you want."

The result may be the same but that is not all one should focus if we attempt to determine the worth of a society. The laws in place are important as well and, by law, elves have exactly the same rights as humans.
It doesn't always work as it should but it's not like the elves are doing all they can to integrate into human society. A good example is that burning of homes.
Intolerant humans have burnt down the homes of elves who attempt to live outside the Alienage and that is utterly despicable. However, the usual elven response is to look at the returning elves with contempt and scorn and further isolate themselves rather than, say, help those elves protect their homes. If Soris marries a wealthy human woman, rather than seeing this as a joyful occasion as one of their own would improve his living conditions and perhaps make humans more accostumed to their presence, they riot. That's not helping.

BTW, while offense to physical integrity is punishal by law, so are offenses to one's honor. Such as calling humans lazy.

re Dalish: the codex you mention was written by Sister Petrine, i.e. straight from the Chantry.

It is consistent both with elven behavior; isolationism; and human; diplomacy and trade between nations. It's a fairly unbiased entry and I see no reason to not believe her on that particular point.

[WardenWade]

Faerunner wrote...

WardenWade wrote...

Ultimately it may be debatable how long an alliance might have lasted, however, as the injustices driving mages and (city) elves in general differ a bit, but maybe they could have made a difference in one another's struggles and lightened each other's burdens some?  I like to think so, anyway   Both seem, to me, to have their origins in perceived innate "wrongness."

I'm not so sure. Mages and elves are both oppressed by non-magic humans. Elves have a greater affinity for magic than humans, yet both magic and non-magic elves must both bow to human rule. A few city elven mage NPC's briefly mention the connection between their race, magic and oppression (like Huon), but this is never explored beyond a throwaway line.

That's a good point.  I hadn't thought of the more natural magical affinity of the elves as an aspect of possible alliance, and I had forgotten the comments of elven mages making the connection there.  It brings up a very interesting angle...not to mention many elven mages in Denerim, Kirkwall, etc., would have immediate family in the alienages.  That alone, on either side, would be arguably worth fighting for IMO

Faerunner wrote...
... Then again, like you said, most city elves are devout Andrastians (her freeing them from slavery and all) and they get their knowledge from non-magic human scholars. If Chantry priests say that Andraste said, "Magic exists to serve man and never to rule over him," and warn that freeing mages will lead to another Tevinter Imperium, then most elves will turn on mages of all races to keep it from happening (like Fenris).

I never considered that possibility before. You make a good point. Now I think the elves' involvement in the mage/templar is even more interesting than ever. I hope the developers explore elven involvement, though I'll admit I'm not fully optimistic.

Yes, this could be a sticky point as well.  Mages who do have family in the alienage might even find some members, much as with humans, looking upon them warily as per Chantry doctrine...and some mages might consider city elves not worth the time?  Ultimately maybe it boils down to the individual, mage or elf: following the Chantry's official doctrine, or the ties of family and especially shared suffering (which is also true to the very best of Andrastianism, IMO).  And, as you touched on, there is the memory of what magic has done to elves in general.  I find this tension intriguing myself, and I'm glad you do as well   It's difficult to say how it might turn out in DA:I, but I hope this possibility is fleshed out as well.

Modifié par WardenWade, 09 février 2013 - 11:35 .

[BlueMagitek]

You know, while there is bias in the codexes, I don't understand the entire "Chantry codexes are false while everything else is totes legit". I mean, the other entries about the Dales is from the Dalish, and they have *much* less of a reason to be legitimate, relying quite a bit on oral history (unreliable) and taking into account their vile attitude towards most humans in general (Dalish Origin, Zath).

So, saying "Well that's straight from the Chantry" doesn't really mean anything when Chantry scholars write more or less about everything. Should I throw out everything said by Brother Genetivi as well? He's written a fair share of codexes.

[Sutekh]

BlueMagitek wrote...

You know, while there is bias in the codexes, I don't understand the entire "Chantry codexes are false while everything else is totes legit". I mean, the other entries about the Dales is from the Dalish, and they have *much* less of a reason to be legitimate, relying quite a bit on oral history (unreliable) and taking into account their vile attitude towards most humans in general (Dalish Origin, Zath).

So, saying "Well that's straight from the Chantry" doesn't really mean anything when Chantry scholars write more or less about everything. Should I throw out everything said by Brother Genetivi as well? He's written a fair share of codexes.

When the codex is about a conflict in which the Chantry directly participated, I'd say that at least caution is in order. I'd certainly wouldn't take it at face value.

As for the Dalish "vile" attitude, don't reduce the whole Dalish nation to Zathrian or Velanna. Marethari in the Dalish Origin has a pretty tolerant stance towards humans when she berates the Warden-to-be for his actions during the opening sequence. It's also said (by Varathorn) that the Warden's father (and former Sabrae Keeper) was pushing for a (re)opening of the relationships with humans.

[MisterJB]

Sutekh wrote...
Marethari

The Truth-is-a-rare-thing-in-humans lady? Yeah, she can go climb the mountain by herself for all I care.

[BlueMagitek]

And? The Dalish system is far worse for history than the Chantry System. They lost a lot more than the Chantry did. While there might be some white washing going on, there's no way a human hating Dalish is going to say "Yeah, well, we were kind of colossal jerks and murdered people for their opinion, so we got what was coming".

And why shouldn't I consider the attitude of a centuries old Keeper who has had years to use his influence?

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

Who should we believe in? Every Andrastean nation in Thedas who have little reason to love orlesian and yet no entry in the codex contests the Sack of Val-Royeaux or the elves who don't actually contest it, just refuse to acknowledge it?
As if imperialistic societies can't be invaded.

If the Dales attacked Orlais and the Chantry in response to an invasion by armed and armored templars, it would explain why the elves didn't want their enemy in a position to attack them again, especially one driven by religious motivation in spreading the Chant to the four corners of the world (and their power, as a consequence).

Modifié par LobselVith8, 09 février 2013 - 11:53 .

[Sutekh]

BlueMagitek wrote...

And? The Dalish system is far worse for history than the Chantry System. They lost a lot more than the Chantry did. While there might be some white washing going on, there's no way a human hating Dalish is going to say "Yeah, well, we were kind of colossal jerks and murdered people for their opinion, so we got what was coming".

And why shouldn't I consider the attitude of a centuries old Keeper who has had years to use his influence?

Because you reduce a whole nation made of thousands (ok, maybe hundreds) of people to one single man. Not all Ferelden Dalish are as isolationist as Zathrian, and not all Dalish behave like Ferelden Dalish. It's getting late here, so I won't start a documented research, but there are countries (I think Rivain) where Dalish have camps in close vicinity to cities and almost live amongst humans.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
If the Dales attacked Orlais and the Chantry in response to an invasion by armed and armored templars, it would explain why the elves didn't want their enemy in a position to attack them again, especially one driven by religious motivation in spreading the Chant to the four corners of the world (and their power, as a consequence).

Even if that was what happened, it would still be reprhensible, both in morality and practicality.
Morality because they slaugthered innocent humans who played no part in any invasion; orlesians; and in practicality because by attacking the Chantry they managed to anger every single human outside of Tevinter.

[Anchor5]

Conflict is the crux of all storytelling, and having party members that disagree with you to the point of conflict is nothing new to Bioware games. I think having a character who possesses a commonly held opinion of the world they inhabit would only help to immerse the player into the fantasy world, and maybe teach them something about ignorance in the process. The example of Leliana not realizing the racism in her description of Orlesian elves is a perfect way to portray the severity of cultural ignorance without endorsing it at all. There should be more examples of this, where racism is portrayed more subtly, and even characters who think themselves well-meaning might actually be offensive. Unless, of course, Thedas is supposed to be a society much more socially tolerant and enlightened than our own. And remember there's a difference between being evil and being stupid; we're all born stupid, and we'd probably all be racist if we didn't learn better at some point.

I love the fact that people in this very thread are debating elvish culture. Another example of how conflict breeds interest.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
If the Dales attacked Orlais and the Chantry in response to an invasion by armed and armored templars, it would explain why the elves didn't want their enemy in a position to attack them again, especially one driven by religious motivation in spreading the Chant to the four corners of the world (and their power, as a consequence).

Even if that was what happened, it would still be reprhensible, both in morality and practicality.
Morality because they slaugthered innocent humans who played no part in any invasion; orlesians; and in practicality because by attacking the Chantry they managed to anger every single human outside of Tevinter.

Invading Orlais doesn't mean they committed genocide - it means they tried to deconstruct the Orlesian Empire, which had a symbiotic relationship with the Chantry (as we know from history, and the occupation of Ferelden).

As for that scene in the Human Noble Origin, the devs said the point was to put the player on the other side of racism (via the City Elf Origin).

[MisterJB]

Faerunner wrote...
And yet Roland and Younger Cousland out-rank her. It's funny for them because they know she couldn't act on it without serious consequences. It's not as funny for the elves because she can very well act on her threat against them if she chose, and they couldn't do anything about it if she did. 

Doesn't mean she treats her staff well, or that they even like being treated that way. Not as if they have much choice though since humans treat elves poorly everywhere.

If the elves were, at all, scared of her carrying out any threats they would not insult her or they would talk to the Couslands who are said to treat their elven servants fairly.
The elves are not scared, you're looking for abuse where there is none.

No matter where you go in Ferelden (and Kirkwall, come to think of it), you see humans mistreating elves and/or elves terrified of punishment.  They'd just be trading one abusive household for another. 

Innacurate. Lady Leandra treats her elven servant well, the Couslands treat their elven servants well, there is no sign of abuse at Duke Prosper's household, Leliana tells us of orlesian elves who live better lives than humans, we see one abuse in Kirkwall.
There is inequality between elves and humans in all of Thedas; even those elves who have risen above humans did so by serving other humans which is a form of racism; but there needs to be more than "inequality" for there to be actual abuse going on.

The game makes it very clear that elves were not allowed to own weapons or know combat long before the purge. It's strongly implied that Adaia trained her child on the sly, and Cyrion encourages said child to hide their training so they won't be killed by humans for looking like a trouble-maker the way Adaia was. After Vaughan kipnaps the brides/maids, Duncan has to loan the rescue party some weapons and they have to steal the rest because it's clear they don't have any of their own. (Any human in the origin who spots the CE with a weapon automatically knows something's up because elves aren't allowed to carry weapons.)

All that indicates is that elves with weapons are a rare sight which is not indicative of a ban on it but rather of it being a sureway to provoke humans. The CE also advises a child not to speak against humans because it's dangerous but that doesn't mean elves are not allowed freedom of speech, it means there are racial tensions.
The official notice forbidding elves form bearing arms only appears in the Alienage after the riots which indicates that was the cause of the ban.
It's not like you see human civillians walking around with weapons, anyway.

If the Alienage gets its own Bann, an epilogue slide is supposed to reveal that: "New law gave the elves more trading rights and their own militia within the Alienage." They're discriminated against in law as well as in practice, though it makes little difference because, as Sutekh said, the result is the same.

Humans can't form militias either.
And just like I said to Sutekh, there are more things to take into account when determining the worth of a society beyond the results: Extablished laws are important; they are the difference between institutionalized discrimination and not, after all.

And yet they let them come back and rebuild rather than burning and looting their homes and killing them for daring to move into their neighborhood. That's more help than I can say humans provide, in their pursuit of a "better life."

It's not the obligation of the humans to help the elves; other than the city guard who, as far as we know, arrests the people who commit these crimes. But if the city elves are waiting for human help to improve their living conditions, they can very well wait another 900 years.
How about the elves help other elves buy and protect their homes outside the Alienage rather than look at them with contempt? That would be a start.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Invading Orlais doesn't mean they committed genocide - it means they tried to deconstruct the Orlesian Empire, which had a symbiotic relationship with the Chantry (as we know from history, and the occupation of Ferelden).

Because invasions are oh so peaceful. I'm sure that a thousand years of racial tensions plus the belief that humans are a blight on the elven lifespan did not inspire the elves to brutality. I'm sure no innocent men, women and chilldren were murdered, mutilated, violated.

Modifié par MisterJB, 10 février 2013 - 12:39 .

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Invading Orlais doesn't mean they committed genocide - it means they tried to deconstruct the Orlesian Empire, which had a symbiotic relationship with the Chantry (as we know from history, and the occupation of Ferelden).

Because invasions are oh so peaceful. I'm sure that a thousand years of racial tensions plus the belief that humans are a blight on the elven lifespan did not inspire the elves to brutality. I'm sure no innocent men, women and chilldren were murdered, mutilated, violated.

The same can be said of the templars who entered the Dales in response to the elves' refusal to convert to the Chantry.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The same can be said of the templars who supposedly entered the Dales in response to the elves' refusal to convert to the Chantry.

So it can. Except their intention was not to deconstruct any nation and you can't convert dead elves.
Of course, even if the templars did these things, that invasion was beaten back before they reached the elven capital thus less injured.

[Herr Uhl]

Can we steer this away from who threw the first bag of flaming poo? You've been over this in multiple threads.

[BlueMagitek]

Sutekh wrote...

Because you reduce a whole nation made of thousands (ok, maybe hundreds) of people to one single man. Not all Ferelden Dalish are as isolationist as Zathrian, and not all Dalish behave like Ferelden Dalish. It's getting late here, so I won't start a documented research, but there are countries (I think Rivain) where Dalish have camps in close vicinity to cities and almost live amongst humans.

One man who had lived centuries in a position of power.  So I think he had quite a bit of influence.  There is also the Dalish distrust of City Elves in addition to humans.  Lots of active malice.  So I think we can consider the Dalish codexes about, well, anything regarding other people, to be taken with a few mountains of salt. 

[Androme]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Androme wrote...

I think people need to learn what racism is before using the word in a discussion such as this one.

Hint: The belief that your race is genetically superior to other races.

Acknowledging the existence of races (irl humanity is a species with several races), is called racial awareness.Not racism.

Just wanted to drop by and add this to the discussion because there's bound to be people screaming racist at someone suggesting elves are not as contributing to Thedosian society as humans or whatever.

Funny, because your definition of racism is not, in fact, the definition used by anyone else on this planet. That's a racist belief, yes, and someone who holds that belief is almost certainly going to behave in a very racist manner, but that is not the be-all and end-all "this and nothing else" of racism.

Just because fifteen years old liberal Justin thinks treating someone that is not the same as you badly is racism does not make it so, what I described is the original, core meaning of racism. I don't care about what you ''think'' racism is, something is what it is.

Modifié par Androme, 10 février 2013 - 03:03 .

[Androme]

Meatbaggins wrote...

Androme wrote...

I think people need to learn what racism is before using the word in a discussion such as this one.

Hint: The belief that your race is genetically superior to other races.

You might want to educate yourself on the various forms of racism before coming in to a thread to educate others. Of course merely stating that races exist isn't inherently racist, but it's not  By your defintion, someone who says "I don't believe I'm genetically superior to (insert race) I just can't stand them/think they don't deserve the same rights/think they should be separated" isn't racist. Also, your narrow, simplistic definition doesn't even begin to address institutionalized racism and it's connection to racial stereotypes and social disparity.

Androme wrote...
Acknowledging the existence of races (irl humanity is a species with several races), is called racial awareness.Not racism.

Many scientists dispute the notion that humans are biologically divided into clearly-defined "races", but it's true that believing so isn't inherently racist.

There are no ''different forms'' of racism. The original, core meaning of racism is the belief of racial superiority, the term ''racism'' was coined to describe this belief that some people had. Anything other than that is a corruption of the original meaning.

Edit:
Wanting to treat people unlike yourself differently (worse) is not racism in itself, if it's based on racist beliefs, then obviously it's racism. But if not based on racist beliefs, then it's simply discrimination, not racism.

Modifié par Androme, 10 février 2013 - 03:12 .

[LobselVith8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

Because you reduce a whole nation made of thousands (ok, maybe hundreds) of people to one single man. Not all Ferelden Dalish are as isolationist as Zathrian, and not all Dalish behave like Ferelden Dalish. It's getting late here, so I won't start a documented research, but there are countries (I think Rivain) where Dalish have camps in close vicinity to cities and almost live amongst humans.

One man who had lived centuries in a position of power.  So I think he had quite a bit of influence.  There is also the Dalish distrust of City Elves in addition to humans.  Lots of active malice.  So I think we can consider the Dalish codexes about, well, anything regarding other people, to be taken with a few mountains of salt. 

Except plenty of elves in Zathrian's own clan aren't racist, including his First Lanaya. So it's more than a little silly for you to disregard the Dalish codex entries simply because Zathrian is angry that humans brutally murdered his son and raped his daughter.

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

All that indicates is that elves with weapons are a rare sight which is not indicative of a ban on it but rather of it being a sureway to provoke humans. The CE also advises a child not to speak against humans because it's dangerous but that doesn't mean elves are not allowed freedom of speech, it means there are racial tensions.
The official notice forbidding elves form bearing arms only appears in the Alienage after the riots which indicates that was the cause of the ban.
It's not like you see human civillians walking around with weapons, anyway.

IIRC, talking to Alarith in the CE origin and asking him if he sells weapons prompts him to say what amounts to "What are you, nuts? You know Elves can't have weapons."

[BlueMagitek]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except plenty of elves in Zathrian's own clan aren't racist, including his First Lanaya. So it's more than a little silly for you to disregard the Dalish codex entries simply because Zathrian is angry that humans brutally murdered his son and raped his daughter.

Centuries ago.  And then he turned said humans into werewolves.  So.... no sympathy there?

And it's hilarious to discount a codex written by a Chantry brother or sister just because they're affiliated with the Chantry.  Or to disregard a codex from a First Enchanter because they're a part of the Circle.  Seriously, get over it.

[MisterJB]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
IIRC, talking to Alarith in the CE origin and asking him if he sells weapons prompts him to say what amounts to "What are you, nuts? You know Elves can't have weapons."

You are right. I just checked and he say weapons are banned in the Alienage and that possessing one is punishable by...something.
Of course, this doesn't tell us how much the law allows humans the freedom to possess weapons; for instance, can a shopkeeper just buy a greatsword at Wade's and carry it around his shoulder in Denerim, doubtfull; but I concede the point. Elves can't own weapons which does leave them at a disadvantage should trouble arise.