2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwydden]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry controlled Circles that existed for nearly a millennia prove otherwise, which are condemned by some as slavery, and have lead to suicide, escapes, murders, rapes, genocides, and rebellions. The Chantry is responsible for spreading it's anti-mage gospel to the people, and instructing their templars that they have dominion over mages by "divine right".

The Circle system was originally a compromise between the mages and the Chantry. The mages themselves agreed to it. What it became later in some places is a different matter altogether, and the templars are to blame for that, if anyone. The anti-mage gospel is religion. They're just teaching what they honestly believe in. You may not agree with it, and yes, it have caused problems to mages, but that doesn't mean the Chantry meant it that way, out of meanness.

LobselVith8 wrote...
As for the elves, their treatment as being distant from the Maker, corralling them in ghettos, and the vilification of the Dalish as heathens (as well threatening them to convert and having their templars hunt them down), illustrates why I strongly disagree with your assessment.

I don't remember any instances were elves were said to be distant from the Maker. Dwarves, sure, but elves? The elves are not forced into ghettos, they live there because they want to. Simple as that. The dalish are heathens to Andrastians. Religions usually look down on others, and few are innocent of this particular behaviour. However, the dalish are a small and dispersed enough group that the Chantry doesn't care much about them, and the threats you speak of would be isolated events, if they exist at all (I don't remember any example of this). Templars only hunt down ilegal mages. The dalish have ilegal mages, ergo, the templars are just doing their jobs.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Also, Dalish history teaching that the war with the Chantry started when
templars invaded after the elves kicked out human missionaries. Whether
you believe it or not, there's history between the Chantry and the
People.

I don't want to get into an argument over what version of the fall of the Dales is more accurate, so I won't even comment on this. I ask you as a favor to do the same.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Xilizhra wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

As for the elves bit, I think Lobsel is referring specifically to the Exalted March on the Dales. 

Ancient history. I would insist it is arguable whether the Chantry should be blamed for that, but I don't even want to get into the dalish versus human accounts debate again.

As for the mages, we already know the templars don't always do what the Chantry says.

I don't think stealing something a long time ago makes what you stole not be stolen, if you're still keeping it.

Statute of limitations applies after 200 - 500 years of ownership. After that period, there isn't even a case to be ackowledged.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 octobre 2013 - 05:44 .

[Xilizhra]

The Circle system was originally a compromise between the mages and the Chantry. The mages themselves agreed to it. What it became later in some places is a different matter altogether, and the templars are to blame for that, if anyone. The anti-mage gospel is religion. They're just teaching what they honestly believe in. You may not agree with it, and yes, it have caused problems to mages, but that doesn't mean the Chantry meant it that way, out of meanness.

Their sincerity is irrelevant. It should be changed regardless.

Statute of limitations applies after 200-500 years of ownership.

So if you can steal something and hold onto it for long enough, it becomes yours? I think not, morally speaking.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Circle system was originally a compromise between the mages and the Chantry. The mages themselves agreed to it. What it became later in some places is a different matter altogether, and the templars are to blame for that, if anyone. The anti-mage gospel is religion. They're just teaching what they honestly believe in. You may not agree with it, and yes, it have caused problems to mages, but that doesn't mean the Chantry meant it that way, out of meanness.

Their sincerity is irrelevant. It should be changed regardless.

Statute of limitations applies after 200-500 years of ownership.

So if you can steal something and hold onto it for long enough, it becomes yours? I think not, morally speaking.

I say yes. Considering if by that time, there have been so many generations living on the land that it is easily established that this is their land, where their fathers and forefathers down the line have lived, bleed, sweat, and cried on.

And if we're talking about the dales, the humans have lived on the land longer than the dalish did, they have senority of the claim.

And if you really wanted to argue morals, than let's argue about the morality of owning land and territroy in the first place, instead of having land be considered a public good.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 octobre 2013 - 05:51 .

[MisterJB]

Wulfram wrote...

Tevinter is presented as ludicrously over the top evil in DA2, probably a reaction to people's tendency to idealise it as a home for free mages after DA:O. It's also mostly seen through the eyes of Fenris, which makes it easy enough to write it off as an unreliable narrator - not that he's lying, but that the experience of the personal slave of someone like Danarius isn't necessarily representative.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if we get the Good Tevinter Magister that was in the leaked survey. He might end up being a lot more convincing a critic of Tevinter society than Fenris was.

Most of the things alleged by Anders to be wrong with the Templars/Chantry are pretty much experienced in the games, the dispute isn't whether these things are happening but whether they're necessary or justified

How exactly was Tevinter presented as ludicrously over the top evil in DA2?
The only thing that could even be considered as being gratuitously evil was Danarius killing a child to power a spell for the sake of a party but even that is nothing outwordly or over the top; it happens all the time in the real world.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MisterJB wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Tevinter is presented as ludicrously over the top evil in DA2, probably a reaction to people's tendency to idealise it as a home for free mages after DA:O. It's also mostly seen through the eyes of Fenris, which makes it easy enough to write it off as an unreliable narrator - not that he's lying, but that the experience of the personal slave of someone like Danarius isn't necessarily representative.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if we get the Good Tevinter Magister that was in the leaked survey. He might end up being a lot more convincing a critic of Tevinter society than Fenris was.

Most of the things alleged by Anders to be wrong with the Templars/Chantry are pretty much experienced in the games, the dispute isn't whether these things are happening but whether they're necessary or justified

How exactly was Tevinter presented as ludicrously over the top evil in DA2?
The only thing that could even be considered as being gratuitously evil was Danarius killing a child to power a spell for the sake of a party but even that is nothing outwordly or over the top; it happens all the time in the real world.

I have never heard of a child powered party machine before.

[Xilizhra]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Circle system was originally a compromise between the mages and the Chantry. The mages themselves agreed to it. What it became later in some places is a different matter altogether, and the templars are to blame for that, if anyone. The anti-mage gospel is religion. They're just teaching what they honestly believe in. You may not agree with it, and yes, it have caused problems to mages, but that doesn't mean the Chantry meant it that way, out of meanness.

Their sincerity is irrelevant. It should be changed regardless.

Statute of limitations applies after 200-500 years of ownership.

So if you can steal something and hold onto it for long enough, it becomes yours? I think not, morally speaking.

I say yes. Considering if by that time, there have been so many generations living on the land that it is easily established that this is their land, where their fathers and forefathers down the line have lived, bleed, sweat, and cried on.

And if we're talking about the dales, the humans have lived on the land longer than the dalish did, they have senority of the claim.

And if you really wanted to argue morals, than let's argue about the morality of owning land and territroy in the first place, instead of having land be considered a public good.

My opinion on the matter: I wouldn't make the current inhabitants leave, but I would pass political control of the land over to the Dalish to govern as they see fit. I won't unduly harm the people living on it by forcing them out, but I see no reason why Orlais should have possession any longer.

[MisterJB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The people who hate this the most are pro-mages, because it destroys their "evil chantry uses lyrium just to control tempalrs" theory.

The mechanism of their oppression does not change the fact that they are oppressors.

If lyrium is necessary to power the abilities that enable templars to perform their duties rather than it simply be a form of controlling them, then the Chantry is not opressing them.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Circle system was originally a compromise between the mages and the Chantry. The mages themselves agreed to it. What it became later in some places is a different matter altogether, and the templars are to blame for that, if anyone. The anti-mage gospel is religion. They're just teaching what they honestly believe in. You may not agree with it, and yes, it have caused problems to mages, but that doesn't mean the Chantry meant it that way, out of meanness.

Their sincerity is irrelevant. It should be changed regardless.

The Circle Towers were an alternative to Divine Ambrosia II launching an Exalted March on the mages in her cathedral who peacefully protested their lack of rights in Andrastian society; I'm not certain that was really a compromise as much a choice that lead to their survival.

[MisterJB]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
I have never heard of a child powered party machine before.

It's in one of Fenris' banters with Sebastian.

"Fenris: Danarius once killed a little boy to fuel blood magic that let him impress his fellow Senators at a party. What was the purpose there? "

[Cainhurst Crow]

MisterJB wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
I have never heard of a child powered party machine before.

It's in one of Fenris' banters with Sebastian.

"Fenris: Danarius once killed a little boy to fuel blood magic that let him impress his fellow Senators at a party. What was the purpose there? "

But in the real world?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Xilizhra wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Circle system was originally a compromise between the mages and the Chantry. The mages themselves agreed to it. What it became later in some places is a different matter altogether, and the templars are to blame for that, if anyone. The anti-mage gospel is religion. They're just teaching what they honestly believe in. You may not agree with it, and yes, it have caused problems to mages, but that doesn't mean the Chantry meant it that way, out of meanness.

Their sincerity is irrelevant. It should be changed regardless.

Statute of limitations applies after 200-500 years of ownership.

So if you can steal something and hold onto it for long enough, it becomes yours? I think not, morally speaking.

I say yes. Considering if by that time, there have been so many generations living on the land that it is easily established that this is their land, where their fathers and forefathers down the line have lived, bleed, sweat, and cried on.

And if we're talking about the dales, the humans have lived on the land longer than the dalish did, they have senority of the claim.

And if you really wanted to argue morals, than let's argue about the morality of owning land and territroy in the first place, instead of having land be considered a public good.

My opinion on the matter: I wouldn't make the current inhabitants leave, but I would pass political control of the land over to the Dalish to govern as they see fit. I won't unduly harm the people living on it by forcing them out, but I see no reason why Orlais should have possession any longer.

Yes, remove any human control of the land at all and give it to the racist, elitiest, xenophobic history white washing elves.

I'm sure they won't do anything to the humans, seeing how highly elves like zathrian or sarel thought of them. I wonder what they'll turn them into this time. Werewolves again? Maybe trolls or orks? Perhaps they'll simply turn them to stone and leave them aware forever.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 octobre 2013 - 06:03 .

[MisterJB]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
But in the real world?

Children being sold into slavery is well documented in world history, both in ancient and modern times.
Whether they are killed at parties I, thankfully, do not know but I don't really think it's that farfetched.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MisterJB wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
But in the real world?

Children being sold into slavery is well documented in world history, both in ancient and modern times.
Whether they are killed at parties I, thankfully, do not know but I don't really think it's that farfetched.

You said it happens all the time in the real world. Specifically the child killing part.

I don't think I would agree, and so I think tevinter is portrayed as kinda over the top in DA2.

[Xilizhra]

Yes, remove any human control of the land at all and give it to the racist, elitiest, xenophobic history white washing elves.

I'm sure they won't do anything to the humans, seeing how highly elves like zathrian or sarel thought of them. I wonder what they'll turn them into this time. Werewolves again? Maybe trolls or orks? Perhaps they'll simply turn them to stone and leave them aware forever.

None of your conjectures make the land suddenly not stolen.

I admit that Arlathan would be a better prize, however.

[Gwydden]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Circle Towers were an alternative to Divine Ambrosia II launching an Exalted March on the mages in her cathedral who peacefully protested their lack of rights in Andrastian society; I'm not certain that was really a compromise as much a choice that lead to their survival.

What I meant was that the purpose of the Circles was never the abuse mages, who originally thought it was an acceptable option. The Circles becoming prisons where templars treat mages like property is a recent ocurrence, and it doesn't happen everywhere.

[Gwydden]

Xilizhra wrote...

None of your conjectures make the land suddenly not stolen.

I admit that Arlathan would be a better prize, however.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: it was conquered. Not stolen. They're different things.

Also, Arlathan is gone for good, it would seem. If it remains, it is likely a darkspawn infested underground pit.

[Xilizhra]

Gwydden wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Circle Towers were an alternative to Divine Ambrosia II launching an Exalted March on the mages in her cathedral who peacefully protested their lack of rights in Andrastian society; I'm not certain that was really a compromise as much a choice that lead to their survival.

What I meant was that the purpose of the Circles was never the abuse mages, who originally thought it was an acceptable option. The Circles becoming prisons where templars treat mages like property is a recent ocurrence, and it doesn't happen everywhere.

It was relatively acceptable, a step up that we no longer have to tolerate.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: it was conquered. Not stolen. They're different things.

Also, Arlathan is gone for good, it would seem. If it remains, it is likely a darkspawn infested underground pit.

It's true, one involves far more genocide. And if Arlathan is gone for good, that might make the Dales the second prize.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 octobre 2013 - 06:11 .

[Gwydden]

Xilizhra wrote...

It was relatively acceptable, a step up that we no longer have to tolerate.

Never said otherwise.

Xilizhra wrote...

It's true, one involves far more genocide.

Not my point. And the word genocide is used loosely. Conquest simply means that the Dalish and the humans fought each other for whatever reason. The dalish lost, and they suffered the consequences. Fair? No, but war never is.

Xilizhra wrote...

And if Arlathan is gone for good, that might make the Dales the second prize.

Why the Dales? Nothing elven remains there. It's just like any other piece of land in Thedas.

[Xilizhra]

Not my point. And the word genocide is used loosely. Conquest simply means that the Dalish and the humans fought each other for whatever reason. The dalish lost, and they suffered the consequences. Fair? No, but war never is.

It's not being used loosely at all here. And I, should I happen to return it to its rightful owners, will at least try to be fair.

Why the Dales? Nothing elven remains there. It's just like any other piece of land in Thedas.

Historical claim and the fact that Orlais has been weakened. Opportunity knocks.

[Hellion Rex]

Gwydden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

None of your conjectures make the land suddenly not stolen.

I admit that Arlathan would be a better prize, however.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: it was conquered. Not stolen. They're different things.

Also, Arlathan is gone for good, it would seem. If it remains, it is likely a darkspawn infested underground pit.

Yeah, didn't Tevinter pretty much pull an Atlantis and sink the city?

[BlueMagitek]

Yeah, Tevinter really sunk the Elves' chances there. So the capitol of their old empire is less important than the Dales though. Because reasons.

Anyway, are you guys turning this into another Dalish thing again? Geez, get a new topic already.

I imagine that lyrium is now definitely required because suddenly the lore is a bit screwed if anyone could just manifest anti-Fade power.

[Medhia Nox]

Dalish are serious business.

[Gwydden]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not being used loosely at all here. And I, should I happen to return it to its rightful owners, will at least try to be fair.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Xilizhra wrote...

Historical claim and the fact that Orlais has been weakened. Opportunity knocks.

All right. You want the elves to have a homeland, and you're willing to have them come into it by right of conquest. No one gives a damn about historical claim. It's a nonsensical mess. If the elves want the Dales, they will have to sink to the level of Orlais and won't be able to claim the moral highground anymore.

Modifié par Gwydden, 18 octobre 2013 - 06:25 .

[Gwydden]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Dalish are serious business.

Sarcasm?