A fallible character's biased opinion doesn't set or change the definition of slavery when their example is incompatible to it's original definition and in universe examples of slavery as in the case of Orana. In contrast the mages are well learned, not forced to work or without pay and could contest Chantry/Templar authority by voting for secession. The CoM was a perpetual quarantine that at it's worst could be considered a prison.So it's incompatible when it comes to an organization you like despite how multiple characters perceive the Chantry controlled Circles, but it's perfectly fine when it comes to a group you deplore because one single character said so? Just checking.
But continue on with the butchering of slavery's definition to gain a dubious moral high ground.
Nice obfuscating stupidity. The elves of Arlathan were put on a moral pedestal by virtue of Tevinter/humanity being their enemies on these forums. Now that the negatives of their culture have come to light their fanboys feel like or are being called to task while the Dalish continue to be portrayed as either @ss backwards or morally gray like their human counterparts.Not really, considering how my statements focused on the Dalish (to the extent of pointing out that they are flawed and different), and not on Arlathan. I find the hypocrisy more troubling, since no one says the Andrastians should forsake everything they believe in because of the flaws with the Chantry of Andraste, while multiple people act as though the Dalish should forsake everything they believe in if it turns out that Arlathan engaged in some deplorable behavior.
The only hypocrisy with the Dalish reclaiming the glory of their past would be if someone supports slavery and imperialism amongst one group but decries it in them. So far Tevinter is reviled on this board while Orlais is considered ham and cheese.





Retour en haut





