I'm not the least bit surprised that the prospect of the elves not being under the boot of humanity is something some of you would find apocalyptic.
Uh...He didn't even imply he wanted that.
Lob you are starting to put words into folks mouths, that's rude.
The line "benevolent and live in peace with nearby humans" is something you glossed over. When you actually have something that reads that most of the Dalish are malevolent, aside from your preference for this to be the case, let me know.
Then prove to me most are benevolent. You must have tons of evidence to feel as strongly as you do.
I can't tell if it is funny or sad you think I'm Anti-Dalish for seeing that they aren't the nicest bunch.
I'm not the least bit surprised that the prospect of the elves not being under the boot of humanity is something some of you would find apocalyptic.
If their plan relies on summoning demons....
While being heavily biased in favor of the Dalish one.
And I and others continually pointed out it might not lead to nirvana either.
I could say the same for you not addressing the possibility the Dalish might be oppressive to those who refuse to convert.
I've continually pointed out that the player doesn't know which historical account is correct, so your comment about being biased in favor of one doesn't actually make any sense. And my retort was in response to the apocalypse being the result of an independent Dales. That was the issue.
I'm not the least bit surprised that the prospect of the elves not being under the boot of humanity is something some of you would find apocalyptic.
And now i suggest you to go back and re-read my post, unless you are on the side of "ends justify the means".
But the Exalted March was called after the Dalish attacked Red Crossing, correct?
In what the Dalish claim was a response to templar incursion into their territory after they kicked out the missionaries, because the Chantry wanted to convert the elves.
In what the Dalish claim was a response to templar incursion into their territory after they kicked out the missionaries, because the Chantry wanted to convert the elves.
Why didn't they just kill the templars and not bother with red crossing then? And why did they invade other cities after red crossing if this was just to get ride of a few nosy templars?
In what the Dalish claim was a response to templar incursion into their territory after they kicked out the missionaries, because the Chantry wanted to convert the elves.
That's not what I asked.
The Exalted March was called because of the elvish attack on human territory, correct?
Then prove to me most are benevolent. You must have tons of evidence to feel as strongly as you do.
I can't tell if it is funny or sad you think I'm Anti-Dalish for seeing that they aren't the nicest bunch.
I said the Dalish were different and varied, because that is what Gaider said. That was my point. I never said they were perfect, or that they were mostly benevolent. The clans are different.
So basically here is the Orlais-Dales War in a nutshell.
Chantry sends in missionaries.
Dalish kick out missionaries.
Missionaries get armed Templar guards and go back.
Dalish see Templars as soldiers and see it as an invasion.
Dalish attack Red Crossing in response.
War breaks out and Dales push towards Orlais' capitol.
Exalted March is called and Dales are defeated.
Why didn't they just kill the templars and not bother with red crossing then? And why did they invade other cities after red crossing if this was just to get ride of a few nosy templars?
Perhaps the templars were stationed at Red Crossing, which is why they chose to retaliate, if the Dalish historical account is correct. Having the militant arm of the Chantry who think they have dominion over mages by divine right is certainly going to cause conflict when entering sovereign territory where mages aren't controlled.
I said the Dalish were different and varied, because that is what Gaider said. That was my point. I never said they were perfect, or that they were mostly benevolent. The clans are different.
But you will insist the bad clans we saw were in the minority with your "It was just one clan" defense.
A bit off topic, but here's a basic rundown of what happened in Karansebes.
Spoiler
LMAO what a failboat.
And that is why you shouldn't handle guns while drunk 
It's a silly thing, but I actually want to do a Qunari playthrough as an at least modestly Andrastian Quanri. Not expecting much more than we got in, say, DAO or DA2 (where I frequently just went to Ethina to ask for a blessing), but Qunari Inquisitor being religious, as oppossed to ambivalence for the rest, is a must for me.
Though a personal story arc of the Dalish elf converting to Andrastianism would make me laugh for all the wrong reasons.
Ah. I do hope we get the option to play Andrastian/Dalish/Nothing regardless of species.
Hey don't you mock Ruddy! She's a special elf
I said the Dalish were different and varied, because that is what Gaider said. That was my point. I never said they were perfect, or that they were mostly benevolent. The clans are different.
The fact that you disagree with anyone saying the Dalsh may be bad contradicts your assertion.
So basically here is the Orlais-Dales War in a nutshell.
Chantry sends in missionaries.
Dalish kick out missionaries.
Missionaries get armed Templar guards and go back.
Dalish see Templars as soldiers and see it as an invasion.
Dalish attack Red Crossing in response.
War breaks out and Dales push towards Orlais' capitol.
Exalted March is called and Dales are defeated.
And Party time!
So basically here is the Orlais-Dales War in a nutshell.
Chantry sends in missionaries.
Dalish kick out missionaries.
Missionaries get armed Templar guards and go back.
Dalish see Templars as soldiers and see it as an invasion.
Dalish attack Red Crossing in response.
War breaks out and Dales push towards Orlais' capitol.
Exalted March is called and Dales are defeated.
Sounds like war that the Dalish lost in a fair fight
That's not what I asked.
The Exalted March was called because of the elvish attack on human territory correct?
That's what WoT said, and what I posted in my elven thread when I reposted the segment about the fall of the Dales. It doesn't say whether the Chantry version or the Dalish version is correct, so we don't know whether or not it was in retaliation to templar incursion into their kingdom.
Perhaps the templars were stationed at Red Crossing, which is why they chose to retaliate, if the Dalish historical account is correct. Having the militant arm of the Chantry who think they have dominion over mages by divine right is certainly going to cause conflict when entering sovereign territory where mages aren't controlled.
Don't try and bring mage struggles into this discussion, they have nothing to do with this. What you are saying, makes no sense with the thought that the dalish weren't aggressors in the war. If you want this to be a dalish vs templar war, as you seem to try and frame it to justify the sacking of red crossing, then that would still make the dalish an invading army and hostile towards humans.
The templars main headquarters and main chantry are both located deep within orlais. If their plan was to ride orlais of templars, that's the only way they could, making them an army who took initiative to host a religious genocide against the orlesian people and their main faith.
But you will insist the bad clans we saw were in the minority with your "It was just one clan" defense.
I insist that they don't represent all the other clans, especially when the clan in the Dales violated the elven tenant against consorting with spirits. It's no different than when some of you argue that the actions of Karras and Alrik don't represent the behavior of all the templars.
The fact that you disagree with anyone saying the Dalsh may be bad contradicts your assertion.
I disagree with condemning them all for the actions of a few.
So basically here is the Orlais-Dales War in a nutshell.
Chantry sends in missionaries.
Dalish kick out missionaries.
Missionaries get armed Templar guards and go back.
Dalish see Templars as soldiers and see it as an invasion.
Dalish attack Red Crossing in response.
War breaks out and Dales push towards Orlais' capitol.
Exalted March is called and Dales are defeated.
So basically the whole mess started because the Dalish completely over-reacted? 
That's what WoT said, and what I posted in my elven thread when I reposted the segment about the fall of the Dales. It doesn't say whether the Chantry version or the Dalish version is correct, so we don't know whether or not it was in retaliation to templar incursion into their kingdom.
The retaliation certainly took a long path to Val Royeaux.
Don't try and bring mage struggles into this discussion, they have nothing to do with this. What you are saying, makes no sense with the thought that the dalish weren't aggressors in the war. If you want this to be a dalish vs templar war, as you seem to try and frame it to justify the sacking of red crossing, then that would still make the dalish an invading army and hostile towards humans.
Mages were among the nobility of the Dales, as Lanaya points out some of the Keepers are descended from the nobility who governed the Dales. There are also two historical accounts, whether you like it or not. That's why the elven Warden can explicitly say the Chantry invaded the Dales because the elves wouldn't convert to the human religion.
The templars main headquarters and main chantry are both located deep within orlais. If their plan was to ride orlais of templars, that's the only way they could, making them an army who took initiative to host a religious genocide against the orlesian people and their main faith.
If the templars were trespassing into foreign land and were stationed at Red Crossing, that might explain why it was targeted.
So basically the whole mess started because the Dalish completely over-reacted?
More than one war has been started that way...
I insist that they don't represent all the other clans, especially when the clan in the Dales violated the elven tenant against consorting with spirits. It's no different than when some of you argue that the actions of Karras and Alrik don't represent the behavior of all the templars.
I disagree with condemning them all for the actions of a few.
I don't think the majority of the Dalish in the games and books so far can qualify as "a few". While I agree with not using blanket statements, the shown Dalish elves aren't helping their case so I can see why others think the way they do on this.
Retour en haut