1256 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

Plaintiff wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Fight fire with fire. 

Just to be clear here, you support horrible crimes being committed against a civilian population?

So do you, as long as that civilian population has pointy ears.

Turnabout is fair play.

How contemptible.

Your oafish comment about me being an anti-elf bigot notwithstanding, this exchange was worth it to see your vile views flushed out into open ground.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 27 septembre 2013 - 03:53 .

[Hellion Rex]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Fight fire with fire. 

Just to be clear here, you support horrible crimes being committed against a civilian population?

So do you, as long as that civilian population has pointy ears.

Turnabout is fair play.

How contemptible.

Your oafish comment about me being an anti-elf bigot notwithstanding, this exchange was worth it to see your vile views flushed out into open ground.

Again, it is only vile when humans are the target?

[Medhia Nox]

@LobselVith8: Would you also be okay if a Veil tear opens up over the new Dales and the humans say "Sorry, you want an elven place for elves."

And then, once all the elves are consumed by demons (of course it won't happen, because the writers won't allow it) - then the humans move in and wipe out the demons.

Is this really the time to carve out new kingdoms?

I already know your answer.

I'm sorry this game is not solely about the Elven Inquisitor playing French Revolution. I hope you get your game at some point seeing as I know how invested you are in the freedom of the elven people on Thedas.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 27 septembre 2013 - 03:57 .

[wolfhowwl]

eluvianix wrote...
Again, it is only vile when humans are the target?

Of course not.

Tevinter smashing Arlathan and enslaving the elves or Orlais destroying the elven nation is hardly model behavior either.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 27 septembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since you seem to be unaware, Lobel has a history and standing desire to create an Dalish state in the former Dales in Orlais, currently lived upon by Humans who naturally have little interest in that. Lobel has repeatedly defended the conquest and forcible removal (and death of resisters) of the current inhabitants, who have no role or responsibility with the fall of the Dales and who have lived the lands for centuries longer than the Dalish ever had them, and justified these on moral grounds.

I didn't advocate killing civilians, although Andrastians are generally hostile towards heathens and elves (and lynch mobs form to kill apostates) so I think relocation would prevent any attempted murders of the elven populace. This originated from how I supported the idea of helping an elven rebellion reclaim control of their conquered kingdom.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Perhaps you are a better person than I, but if you consider condoning ethnic cleansing fantasies and eagerly advocating their implementation on the basis of historical record as something more moral than a fanwank fantasy... well, I doubt it. 

The current plight of the elves is why I endorse the idea of helping a possible elven rebellion reclaim control of the Dales.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually, finding Lobsel's views both immature and morally abhorrent gives me every right to dismiss what he finds interesting and to state I don't think what he wants should be in the next game. The rules of the forum require me to express my views within a spectrum of decorum, but they do not prevent me from disagreeing with him openly. 

I find the treatment of the elves to be morally repugnant myself, to the point where I think the elves deserve a safe haven from Andrastian society.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Dealing with (and reacting to) local events means the protagonist isn't focusing exclusively on the veil tears. I certainly doubt the pro-Chantry and pro-templar posters in this thread would advocate focusing solely on the veil tears, and nothing else, when it comes to their own factions.[/quote]

And since no one is suggesting the game should, why are you bringing it up? [/quote]

Actually, it was said that the Inquisitor should focus on the veil tears instead of reacting to what's going on in Thedas when I mentioned a Dalish Inquisitor reacting to entering Tevinter society.[/quote]So we shouldn't make false delimmas like you were. Got it. Moving on.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

You made a silly statement that a good number of exotic, dangerous, and potentially dramatic things that could easily provide a vast majority of the context and content of the game would be boring if they didn't include your pet topic. You were being silly, as you have a habit of being, and so were being made light of. Nothing more, nothing less. [/quote]

I mentioned it would be boring if the protagonist focused only on the veil tear, and you went on a tangent because you disagreed with me without bothering to actually read what I wrote. Your failure to read what I wrote doesn't make me silly; it simply makes it clear that you're mudslinging instead of discussing the topic.[/quote]Oh, I read it- it was silly. Humerous, even.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Dalish culture is about holding into their cultural values and their religious practices, as well as their refusal to capitulate to human rule or the Chantry of Andraste. I don't see any reason to play as a Dalish elf and denigrate everything that makes them who they are. [/quote]

Who is denigrating? Your dalish state-building fetish aside, building a state isn't a cultural value or religious practice of the Dalish. [/quote]

The Dalish have their own religion, their own cultural values, and a history with the Orlesian Empire and the Imperium. I was addressing a Dalish protagonist reacting to Orlais and Tevinter during his trek across Thedas.[/quote]Right. But statebuilding isn't a cultural or religious fixation of the Dalish. It's a fixation of yours.

So why should an in-game perspective, presumably based on the Dalish, focus on Dalish statebuilding?
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

You continue to advocate a variety of policies that not only strains feasibility and morality considerations, but one which the contemporary Dalish themselves have shown little interest in. Their cultural values and religious practices have heavily adopted nomadism, and there is no sign of any pan-Dalish movement, popular or driven by its leaders, to go and take back parts of Orlais. [/quote]

The Dalish are nomadic because Andrastians are hostile towards them and templars hunt them down.[/quote]And being nomadic helps them move away away from the dangers. Congratulations, you're starting to catch on.

Now, if the Dalish stop being Nomads and stop moving away from the Human who would do them harm (like, for example, proximity to a xenophobic culture that has little problem in shooting hapless and even innocent human commoners for the crime of proximity)...

The Humans and Dalish aren't at conflict just because of religion. Even if the chantry and templars fall, all the other reasons still apply, and will apply going forward.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's not a Dalish cultural value. That's you, and a small number of Dalish advoacates... and not even all the Dalish advocates believe that's a good idea. The game won't be boring if it doesn't include it. [/quote]

Having their own homeland again actually is a goal of the People. [/quote]Having a homeland built on the corpses and expulsion of others in a hypocritical mockery of their own dearly-held victimhood, however, isn't. Especially when it can easily be viewed and seen as self-defeating and unfeasible in the moderate to long term.

[quote]
And I clearly said the game would be boring if the protagonist only focused on the veil tears, and ignored what was going on around him.
[/quote]And I clearly made fun of you for saying that, and a number of other plots that could be filled with other sorts of content and context, would be boring.


And with that, I am off to work for the day.

[AresKeith]

wolfhowwl wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Again, it is only vile when humans are the target?

Of course not.

Tevinter smashing Arlathan and enslaving the elves or Orlais destroying the elven nation is hardly model behavior either.

If you don't agree with them your anti-elf

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

By overthrowing the Orlesian occupation of the Dales to give the elves one single place in the entire continent where they can be safe from persecution and harassment, where the templars won't hunt them down, where acts of legal mass murder can't endanger men, women, and children, and where the People can legally practice their religion since it's outlawed in the Andrastian kingdoms. 

And in removing and ejecting the established ethnic population, you are conducting... ethnic cleansing.

Your reasons for doing so don't matter. Ethnic cleansing is a reflection of your actions, not your morals. 

When you're doing so to protect elves from a continent of hostile humans who denigrate, mistreat, and even kill elven populations in purges any time they protest, it isn't.

[Medhia Nox]

@LobselVith8: Just a hypothetical... what would happen if you found the history of the elves is actually revisionist propaganda and that the elves had immortality because they were blood mages and killed millions of humans to keep immortal... then those humans rebelled... became Tevinter... crushed the elves... and then, modern Thedas.

It's totally hypothetical - and despite being the story I'd likely portray - probably largely unsupported.

Note: Not "totally" unsupported mind you.

Would elves still be this horribly maligned people?

I find your zealous nature for fictional beings fascinating.

[Hellion Rex]

AresKeith wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Again, it is only vile when humans are the target?

Of course not.

Tevinter smashing Arlathan and enslaving the elves or Orlais destroying the elven nation is hardly model behavior either.

If you don't agree with them your anti-elf

Totally off topic, but I love your avatar picture. Is that one of the Inquisitors from the concept art?

[AresKeith]

eluvianix wrote...

Totally off topic, but I love your avatar picture. Is that one of the Inquisitors from the concept art?

Yes

[Plaintiff]

wolfhowwl wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Again, it is only vile when humans are the target?

Of course not.

Tevinter smashing Arlathan and enslaving the elves or Orlais destroying the elven nation is hardly model behavior either.

Let's ignore the fact that the humans of Thedas are committing genocide against the elves still, every day of their lives. Using violence to prevent the Dalish from settling anywhere remotely habitable, and forcing the city elves to live in cramped, squalid conditions by assaulting the few who manage to crawl out of the shtetl.

No, I will not condemn the elves for doing what they have to to ensure their own survival against an enemy that has proven, time and again, to be vile and ruthless.

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The protagonist is choosing allies, making choices, and reacting to what's going on around him. Since the protagonist is getting involved in local events, I don't see any reason to mute the cultural values and views of a Dalish Inquisitor who is visiting Orlais or Tevinter. We're supposed to be playing as a living person, not an automatron. 

Sure. But ignorring the false delimma, if we're going to play as a Dalish, shouldn't we want views compatible with the in-universe depiction of Dalish viewpoints and perspectives?

There's no 'false dilemmas' in a Dalish Inquisitor wanting his people to have a homeland of their own; that's the entire premise behind the Dalish Boon, after all.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There is no false dilemma in a Dalish main character reacting to Tevinter or Orlais. If slaves are rebelling in Tevinter, perhaps a Dalish Inquisitor would be motivated to help them, since his ancestors were enslaved by the Imperium, and the progenitor of the People died fighting against Tevinter. Or elves trying to rebel in the Dales could allow the elven protagonist to choose between Celene, Gaspard, or the elves.

The false delimma was the Dalish Inquisitor doing what you wanted, or being an automatron.

Technically the rest of what you provided is as well, since it's an arbitary selection of delimmas, but it's also irrelevant.

The dichotomy I addressed was between focusing solely on the veil tears and ignoring what was going on in societies in Thedas, or dealing with what was transpiring in those respective societies during the journey across the expanse of the continent. Your refusal to actually read what I wrote tends to lead to you lambasting me for things I never actually said.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's the implication that there might be an elven rebellion in the Dales, and the Dalish could be gathering in the Dales around this time as well. That's what the earlier conversation focused on. As for abandoning the nomadic life, the Dalish wander to avoid templars and humans who would try to harm them. Their goal is to have their own homeland, and we see how happy the Dalish Boon makes the respective Dalish characters.

And those aren't mass movements of the Dalish. Or the elvish. Or anyone at all. A pan-Dalish invasion of the former Dales hasn't been a plot thread. You don't even know the context of the possible elven rebellion, let alone what it's goals are. You are twisting facts to suit a theory rather than basing a theory off of the facts.

Plenty of people speculate; I've made it clear I'm speculating on the possible ramifications of an elven rebellion that might seek to depose Orlesian authority over the Dales. Your main contention here seems to be your dislike of me.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moreover, a stationary state doesn't fundamentally resolve the issues you raise that the Dalish want to solve- in many respects, it can make them worse. Dalish survival and ability to avoid conflict with templars and humans who would try to harm them has been enabled by nomadism. People who would do them hard, couldn't find them. Giving up nomadism to create a weak state, and with their numbers and power it would only be a weak state, can very easily be pointed as leading the Dalish back to the previous two great disasters of the People- the utter destruction of their states by those who would do them harm.

Merrill focused rebuilding the Eluvian because the People were in decline. Remaining as nomadic groups isn't the solution; if the Dales can be reclaimed, then there's a chance for an elven renaissance for their culture and way of life. Abandoning elves to purges and abuses in the Andrastian kingdoms simply isn't feasible; the status quo shouldn't be tolerated anymore. With the assistance of an organization that can establish ties with leaders across Thedas, I think an Inquisitor aiding the elven people can avoid the fate of Arlathan and the early Dales.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Statism has been the historic destruction of the elves. 

I would say it's humans.

[Ravensword]

So, Plaintiff approves of genocide. Who knew?

Modifié par Ravensword, 27 septembre 2013 - 05:10 .

[Plaintiff]

Ravensword wrote...

So, Plaintiff approves of genocide. Who knew?

I approve of self-defense. I realise it might be difficult for you to tell the difference.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

People in prison, mental institutions, or quarantined are not slaves. Try again.

By whose definition? Yours?

The dictionaries.

You know what a dictionary is? That book that has the definitions and menings of various words, so that people can have a meningfull discussion with common frames of refference and understanding.

Using your own definitions is pointless and only creates confusion. And if everyone started using their own definitions, communication would be impossible.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 27 septembre 2013 - 06:45 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

So, Plaintiff approves of genocide. Who knew?

I approve of self-defense. I realise it might be difficult for you to tell the difference.

Self-defense constitutes genocide now? Seems a tad excesive.....

[Ravensword]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

So, Plaintiff approves of genocide. Who knew?

I approve of self-defense. I realise it might be difficult for you to tell the difference.

So, you advocate genocide as a form of self-defense? Good to know.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

People in prison, mental institutions, or quarantined are not slaves. Try again.

By whose definition? Yours?

The dictionaries.

You know what a dictionary is? That book that has the definitions and menings of various words, so that people can have a meningfull discussion with common frames of refference and understanding.

Using your own definitions is pointless and only creates confusion. And if everyone started using their own definitions, communication would be impossible.


slave [sleyv] slave ant. 5. Photography . a [color=rgb(51, 51, 51)">subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell ]is[/color] discharged.

Slavery: a civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another.

Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck.

If an individual is forced to work for others, receives little to no money, has no choice in where they get to live, doesn't have the freedom to go where they please, is prevented from communicating with the outside world, and is beaten or locked up in solitary confinement for failing to comply with orders, then in what sense is that not slavery? How is that anything less than the Templars and the Chantry exerting absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of the mages?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 06:55 .

[Plaintiff]

Ravensword wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

So, Plaintiff approves of genocide. Who knew?

I approve of self-defense. I realise it might be difficult for you to tell the difference.

So, you advocate genocide as a form of self-defense? Good to know.

I advocate the use of equal force. In this particular instance, I suppose that would equate to genocide.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

People in prison, mental institutions, or quarantined are not slaves. Try again.

By whose definition? Yours?

The dictionaries.

You know what a dictionary is? That book that has the definitions and menings of various words, so that people can have a meningfull discussion with common frames of refference and understanding.

Using your own definitions is pointless and only creates confusion. And if everyone started using their own definitions, communication would be impossible.


slave [sleyv] slave ant. 5. Photography . a [color=rgb(51, 51, 51)">subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell ]is[/color] discharged.

Slavery: a civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another.

Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck.

If an individual is forced to work for others, receives little to no money, has no choice in where they get to live, doesn't have the freedom to go where they please, is prevented from communicating with the outside world, and is beaten or locked up in solitary confinement for failing to comply with orders, then in what sense is that not slavery? How is that anything less than the Templars and the Chantry exerting absolute power over the mages?

Considering no one person has the amount of control, you just quoted as necessary to constitute slavery yourself, then you have just disproven your own claim. Nice going.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

So, Plaintiff approves of genocide. Who knew?

I approve of self-defense. I realise it might be difficult for you to tell the difference.

So, you advocate genocide as a form of self-defense? Good to know.

I advocate the use of equal force. In this particular instance, I suppose that would equate to genocide.

Ah so you do advocate genocide in certain instance, and find it morally justifiable. Good to know.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Let's ignore the fact that the humans of Thedas are committing genocide against the elves still, every day of their lives. Using violence to prevent the Dalish from settling anywhere remotely habitable, and forcing the city elves to live in cramped, squalid conditions by assaulting the few who manage to crawl out of the shtetl.

Wrong.

Not giving part of your own coutnry to the dalish is hardly genocide. Especially when the dalish are very confrontational.

How about you give part of your own country to one of the stateless groups in the real world?
No? You monster.

Secondly, with the dalish being trouble-makers, letting them permenantly settle and make a mini-state within your border is not something any sane ruler would do. The Dalish don't accept anyones authority.  They won't follow the laws of the country they are in, and they have a small army of their own.

If the Dalish want to settle somewhere, it would have to be outside the borders of any established kingdom.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

People in prison, mental institutions, or quarantined are not slaves. Try again.

By whose definition? Yours?

The dictionaries.

You know what a dictionary is? That book that has the definitions and menings of various words, so that people can have a meningfull discussion with common frames of refference and understanding.

Using your own definitions is pointless and only creates confusion. And if everyone started using their own definitions, communication would be impossible.


slave [sleyv] slave ant. 5. Photography . a [color=rgb(51, 51, 51)">subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell ]is[/color] discharged.

Slavery: a civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another.

Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck.

If an individual is forced to work for others, receives little to no money, has no choice in where they get to live, doesn't have the freedom to go where they please, is prevented from communicating with the outside world, and is beaten or locked up in solitary confinement for failing to comply with orders, then in what sense is that not slavery? How is that anything less than the Templars and the Chantry exerting absolute power over the mages?

Considering no one person has the amount of control, you just quoted as necessary to constitute slavery yourself, then you have just disproven your own claim. Nice going.

Person: In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 07:02 .

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wrong.

Not giving part of your own coutnry to the dalish is hardly genocide. Especially when the dalish are very confrontational.

It's not the humans' country. No part of Thedas belongs to them. Every single inch of it is stolen property.

How about you give part of your own country to one of the stateless groups in the real world?
No? You monster.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm very angry with my government and it's newly-instituted harsh measures against refugees.

There's a ****load of open space in the world. With Tokyo's population density, you could fit the world's entire population in Texas.

Secondly, with the dalish being trouble-makers,

Just like them pesky Jews, right?

letting them permenantly settle and make a mini-state within your border is not something any sane ruler would do. The Dalish don't accept anyones authority.  They won't follow the laws of the country they are in, and they have a small army of their own.

If the Dalish want to settle somewhere, it would have to be outside the borders of any established kingdom.

So give them the land to form their own state. I dunno how your parents raised you, but I was taught that when you find stolen property, the morally correct thing to do is return it to the rightful owners.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 07:08 .