1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Daerog]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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

I support the genocide of the darkspawn and all things blight related. Including the Grey Wardens when they are all that remains of the taint/blight.

I'll just say my stance in this debate can be considered anti-dalish by some, I'll just leave it at that without having to write paragraphs and response after response here. The Dales controversy is brought up almost as often as Templar vs mage arguments.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

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

If you really want to go into all the legal mumbo-jumbo (that holds no relevance to Thedas whatsoever), then fine. The Chantry and the Circle are two seperate entities and thus, you have just disproven yourself, even further...

[EmperorSahlertz]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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

I support the genocide of the darkspawn and all things blight related. Including the Grey Wardens when they are all that remains of the taint/blight.

I'll just say my stance in this debate can be considered anti-dalish by some, I'll just leave it at that without having to write paragraphs and response after response here. The Dales controversy is brought up almost as often as Templar vs mage arguments.

Darkspawn aren't cognitive though, so calling it genocide would be incorrect. More like pest control. The disciples does throw an interresting cog into the wheel, on the subject however.

[Daerog]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Are... are you comparing disputed/conquered land as simple stolen property that can be returned to its owner?

Maybe I just misread that...

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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

If you really want to go into all the legal mumbo-jumbo (that holds no relevance to Thedas whatsoever), then fine. The Chantry and the Circle are two seperate entities and thus, you have just disproven yourself, even further...

Since we don't have Thedas's legal jargon, and aren't actually citizens of it, the only possible way to assess the situation is through the lens of our own laws and mores. The game was made for a modern audience, so intterpreting it through a modern lens is totally valid.

Slavery requires both parties to be separate entities, genius. A single entity can't enslave itself.

The Chantry (an organization, and thus a person) has absolute power of life, fortune and liberty over the Circle (another organiztion, and thus another person). The Circle is thus enslaved by the Chantry.

[Plaintiff]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Are... are you comparing disputed/conquered land as simple stolen property that can be returned to its owner?

Maybe I just misread that...

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that's exactly the situation.

There's no dispute to be had. Thedas belongs to the elves and the humans stole it. "Conquering" is not a legitimate means of acquisition.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 07:15 .

[Daerog]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Darkspawn aren't cognitive though, so calling it genocide would be incorrect. More like pest control. The disciples does throw an interresting cog into the wheel, on the subject however.

Well, the Grey Wardens would need to be killed off in the end (or they just go crazy and eventually turn into the things shown in The Calling), they are cognitive, but is it still genocide to wipe out a group of people because they all have a certain kind of disease? Eh, whatever.




Wait, how did this turn into a Dales debate? The topic was about the Mage/Templar War.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ravensword wrote...
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.

Equal force? Against whom? People who have done nothing?
The humans living in the dales have lived there longer than the elves. They have more "rights" to that land if you're using times lived as some sort of deciding factor.
Furthermore, these people have nothing to do with the destruction of the Dales, so how would that be "equal force"?

I guess it would be in a general sense - "humans" destroyed the dales so it's ok to kill "humans" to restore them, but that kind of equality is completely borked, because by that logic, humans could take vengance on ANY elf for anything any otehr elf has done.

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?

Slaves don't have rights. Mages do have rights.
Salves are LEGALY a commodity and can be owned. Mages are not and cannot.

So no, they don't have absolute power over the life (templars have to justify their actions), fortune (lucrosians anyone?) and liberty of mages. A lot of power yes, but not absolute.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 27 septembre 2013 - 07:40 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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

If you really want to go into all the legal mumbo-jumbo (that holds no relevance to Thedas whatsoever), then fine. The Chantry and the Circle are two seperate entities and thus, you have just disproven yourself, even further...

Since we don't have Thedas's legal jargon, and aren't actually citizens of it, the only possible way to assess the situation is through the lens of our own laws and mores. The game was made for a modern audience, so intterpreting it through a modern lens is totally valid.

Slavery requires both parties to be separate entities, genius. A single entity can't enslave itself.

The Chantry (an organization, and thus a person) has absolute power of life, fortune and liberty over the Circle (another organiztion, and thus another person). The Circle is thus enslaved by the Chantry.

The Circle are not enslaved to the Chantry. Legally they are two seperate entities. That much has been established in the lore smartass. So, whenever you try to fling your fancy definitions around, make sure they fit next time, because so far, you havn't managed to actually reinforce your claim.
And even though the Chantry does hold the Right of Annulment, they are still dependant on the Templars, which is yet another seperate entity, to actually enforce it. So tehre are three parties involved in the lives of the mages. So bottom line is: mages are not slaves. It is time for you to try and find a new buzzword for your cause.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Darkspawn aren't cognitive though, so calling it genocide would be incorrect. More like pest control. The disciples does throw an interresting cog into the wheel, on the subject however.

Well, the Grey Wardens would need to be killed off in the end (or they just go crazy and eventually turn into the things shown in The Calling), they are cognitive, but is it still genocide to wipe out a group of people because they all have a certain kind of disease? Eh, whatever.




Wait, how did this turn into a Dales debate? The topic was about the Mage/Templar War.

I don't think the Grey Wardens make up a large enough part of Darkspawn population to be taken into consideration. Besides, once they advance too far along with their calling, they become actual Darkspawns and lose all vestiges of their humanity. Only the dicsicples have shown true cogniscience amongst the Darkspawn(I'm not counting Grey Wardens as Darkspawn, becasue until the very end of a Grey Warden's life he is still human).

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Equal force? Against whom? People who have done nothing?

They haven't "done nothing", they're committing genocide against the elves right freaking now. Violently subjugating a people, forcing them into a nomadic lifestyle or keeping them in racially segregated areas is exactly what genocide looks like.

The humans living in the dales have lived there longer than the elves. They have more "rights" to that land if you're using times lived as some sort of deciding factor.

I'm not. And if I were, you'd be wrong, because the elves were living in all of Thedas long before humans ever set foot on its shores. That includes the Dales.

Furthermore, these people have nothing to do with the destruction of the Dales, so how would that be "equal force"?

It's "equal force" compared to how the humans are subjugating them currently.

I guess it would be in a general sense - "humans" destroyed the dales so it's ok to kill "humans" to restore them, but that kind of equality is completely borked, because by that logic, humans could take vengance on ANY elf for anything any otehr elf has done.

The humans wronged the elves first and have wronged them consistently in all their interactions. So that doesn't hold water.

Slaves don't have rights. Mages do have rights.

That's not true at all. In some systems, slaves have had rights.

Salves are LEGALY a commodity and can be owned. Mages are not and cannot.

It's funny that you use the word "legally". That's not what the legal dictionary says at all.

So no, they don't have absolute power over the life (templars have to justify their actions),

Who do they 'justify' their actions to? Not the mages, certainly not the individual mages they murder.

fortune (lucrosians anyone?)

What about them? 'Fortune' encompasses more than money, which the Chantry can easily take away.

and liberty of mages. A lot of power yes, but not absolute.

How is it anything less than absolute, when the only way the mages could get out from under Chantry influence was to violently rebel?

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

[Daerog]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that's exactly the situation.

There's no dispute to be had. Thedas belongs to the elves and the humans stole it.

I think you are assuming the elves were the original owners. If they weren't, then it belongs as much to the conquering humans as the elven ancestors.

[Plaintiff]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that's exactly the situation.

There's no dispute to be had. Thedas belongs to the elves and the humans stole it.

I think you are assuming the elves were the original owners. If they weren't, then it belongs as much to the conquering humans as the elven ancestors.

That can't be known.

Even if it is the case, the elves stealing it from whoever does not justify the humans stealing it in turn.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that's exactly the situation.

There's no dispute to be had. Thedas belongs to the elves and the humans stole it.

I think you are assuming the elves were the original owners. If they weren't, then it belongs as much to the conquering humans as the elven ancestors.

That can't be known.

Even if it is the case, the elves stealing it from whoever does not justify the humans stealing it in turn.

And your hypocrisy rears its ugly head again.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that's exactly the situation.

There's no dispute to be had. Thedas belongs to the elves and the humans stole it.

I think you are assuming the elves were the original owners. If they weren't, then it belongs as much to the conquering humans as the elven ancestors.

That can't be known.

Even if it is the case, the elves stealing it from whoever does not justify the humans stealing it in turn.

And your hypocrisy rears its ugly head again.

You don't actually know what that word means.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that's exactly the situation.

There's no dispute to be had. Thedas belongs to the elves and the humans stole it.

I think you are assuming the elves were the original owners. If they weren't, then it belongs as much to the conquering humans as the elven ancestors.

That can't be known.

Even if it is the case, the elves stealing it from whoever does not justify the humans stealing it in turn.

And your hypocrisy rears its ugly head again.

You don't actually know what that word means.

Your saying it's okay for elves to steal something, but not okay form humans to steal something.

Sounds like average double standard hypocracy to me.

[ianvillan]

BlueMagitek wrote...

I am afraid that being blunt is sometimes the only way to get things across. While the history of Tevinter and what Thedas was like prior to human arrival is a worthy pursuit of knowledge, well, worry more about the gaping chest wound you're sporting than the hang-nail.

And seriously, if the Chantry wanted an army, why make one as expensive as the Templars? While you can argue about lyrium being a leash all day, and it's true to an extent, it's used for fighting magical foes. If the Chantry was fielding an army to face non magical threats, it wouldn't be one that required a very valuable resource for upkeep.

The circle towers fund a lot of the Templars, the tranquil that the Templars are always creating create magical items that they sell this goes to fund the Templars.

[Plaintiff]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Your saying it's okay for elves to steal something, but not okay form humans to steal something.

Sounds like average double standard hypocracy to me.

I never said it was okay. I said it can't be known, and that the fact of it being stolen previously doesn't make the humans any less wrong.

So in addition to not knowing what 'hypocrisy' means, plenty of people in this thread apparently can't read.

[Daerog]

Plaintiff wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that's exactly the situation.

There's no dispute to be had. Thedas belongs to the elves and the humans stole it.

I think you are assuming the elves were the original owners. If they weren't, then it belongs as much to the conquering humans as the elven ancestors.

That can't be known.

Even if it is the case, the elves stealing it from whoever does not justify the humans stealing it in turn.

Of course not, but doesn't mean the elves have the right to ask for the property they previously stole back.

However, as you say that is currently an unknown until archeology is encouraged in Thedas.

Also, the land belongs to those who were born in it, raised in it, and worked in it for generations. So, it belongs to the current generation of humans. Ancestors may have stolen it, but the current generation did not. It would be wrong to take it from them and kick them out just like it was wrong to kick the elves out so many generations ago.

I may be anti-Dalish, but removing their nation was harsh, but such is the way in Thedas I guess. Even Nevarra had to have conquered other city states to form the nation it is now. It just recently conquered some disputed territory from Orlais.

Edit: Beating the Dales into submission and forcing some trade agreement on them would have been a better alternative, maybe, probably other wars would have started down the road. I don't know, but beating them into submission and forcing international politics and discussion on them would have been a worthy thing to try rather than scattering them across the continent.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 27 septembre 2013 - 07:49 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Your saying it's okay for elves to steal something, but not okay form humans to steal something.

Sounds like average double standard hypocracy to me.

I never said it was okay. I said it can't be known, and that the fact of it being stolen previously doesn't make the humans any less wrong.

So in addition to not knowing what 'hypocrisy' means, plenty of people in this thread apparently can't read.

Hypocrisy means a lot of things. Double standards are an aspect of it. And you have shown time and again, that you have many double standards.

And wether or not the Elves "stole" Thedas from anyone is inconsequential, just like it was when the humans "stole" Thedas from the Elves.
A wolfpack doesn't "steal" hunting territory from another wolfpack. It takes it. The Elves were too weak to defend themselves when Arlathan fell, and they were too weak to defend themselves when the Dales fell. All their claims to their lands evaporated with such spectacular displays of weakness. If you do not have the power to hold on to what is yours, it is no longer yours. The Elves lost. They really need to get over it.

[Ravensword]

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.

Well, at least you're honest.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Your saying it's okay for elves to steal something, but not okay form humans to steal something.

Sounds like average double standard hypocracy to me.

I never said it was okay. I said it can't be known, and that the fact of it being stolen previously doesn't make the humans any less wrong.

So in addition to not knowing what 'hypocrisy' means, plenty of people in this thread apparently can't read.

Hypocrisy means a lot of things. Double standards are an aspect of it. And you have shown time and again, that you have many double standards.

Why don't you elaborate on these, I could use a good laugh.

And wether or not the Elves "stole" Thedas from anyone is inconsequential, just like it was when the humans "stole" Thedas from the Elves.
A wolfpack doesn't "steal" hunting territory from another wolfpack. It takes it. The Elves were too weak to defend themselves when Arlathan fell, and they were too weak to defend themselves when the Dales fell. All their claims to their lands evaporated with such spectacular displays of weakness. If you do not have the power to hold on to what is yours, it is no longer yours. The Elves lost. They really need to get over it.

So if I barge into your home, kill your family and pets, and cast you out into the street, it's safe to assume you'll concede to my right of conquest, and accept that you deserve to be homeless because you were 'weak', yes?

[ianvillan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because slavery is a vast improvement?

Seeing as how the Chantry doesn't own anyone, I'm not sure that fits the definition of slavery.

The most neutral Chantry scholar state that Orlais practices slavery with Elves and Humans.

The Chantry is based in Orlais and has supposedly outlawed slavery, so either they wilfully ignore the slavery while profiting of it, or they actually accept the slavery and allow Orlais to continue.

If the Chantry is so holy and believes in what they preach why haven't they called an exulted march against Orlais. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Equal force? Against whom? People who have done nothing?

They haven't "done nothing", they're committing genocide against the elves right freaking now. Violently subjugating a people, forcing them into a nomadic lifestyle or keeping them in racially segregated areas is exactly what genocide looks like.

So the humans living in the Dales are horrible murders and monsters who deserve death? All of them.
Their horrible crime of living their daily lives is such an affront to the elves that they must be purged!

Also, what genocide? I don't recall elves being systematicly hunted and killed for being elves.

Furthermore, these people have nothing to do with the destruction of the Dales, so how would that be "equal force"?

It's "equal force" compared to how the humans are subjugating them currently.

They are free to leave at any time.
Let's not forge that it's the elves who accepted living in the alianages and accepting the Maker - if it weren't for the Chatnry that demanded kingdoms allowed elves who accept the Maker to live within, they wouldnt' even have that.
You cna argue that humans are racists and the the kingdoms pay only lip-service to the Cahntry's request, evident by the squalor in the alianages..but that changes little.

I guess it would be in a general sense - "humans" destroyed the dales so it's ok to kill "humans" to restore them, but that kind of equality is completely borked, because by that logic, humans could take vengance on ANY elf for anything any otehr elf has done.

The humans wronged the elves first and have wronged them consistently in all their interactions. So that doesn't hold water.

No, your argument doesn't hold water. You use the "collective guilt" and the "first offender" fallacy.

All humans are to blame, thus every human is a valid target and it's murder is justified.

Humans attacked first (not only unsupported, but also waaaaay in the past), therefore, it's OK to kill humans now.




It's funny that you use the word "legally". That's not what the legal dictionary says at all.

Who do they 'justify' their actions to? Not the mages, certainly not the individual mages they murder.

Actually they do. You recall Gregoir consulting with Irwing about Jowan? An requireing proof before acting.

And of course you don't justify yourself to the one you kill. Who does?
Do the Dalish justify themselves to the human they kill when they wander to close to their camp?

What about them? 'Fortune' encompasses more than money, which the Chantry can easily take away.

It can't. The Circles are legally separate and they handle their own finances.
It's like saying you don't have any fortune because the government can take it away.

How is it anything less than absolute, when the only way the mages could get out from under Chantry influence was to violently rebel?

So influence is now an absolutist ownership adn slavery?
They can't get out because they are basicly quarantened. I thought that much was obvious.

[ianvillan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

We don't know if the areas are inhabitable, they want the Dales because it contains some of their heritage and culture that Orlais purged and the way to reclaim their culture is in the Dales. Their is no guarantee that Orlais and the Chantry would even let the Elves peacefully leave Thadas and establish a homeland.