545 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

If the Keeper's desires constitute policy, then all the mage abuses have been directly sanctioned or practiced by the policy makers. If the Keeper's desires do not constitute policy, than the Dalish Warden casually murdering would not be breaking policy (and certainly would not be breaking a cultural norm- it is unadvised, but not a social taboo). Of course, it's also irrelevant: policy is irrelevant if it's systematically broken, a position you have reflected repeatedly time and time again in other contexts.

 

And it's odd that you should cite Petrice in this context. She has many sins, but racism is not one of them.

The latter is closer to true. The point isn't that the Dalish shouldn't change anything, but rather that their annihilation would be unjustified.

[Xilizhra]

Because they weren't allowing people to safely travel within the forest.

It's an outlier community; it most likely relies upon the forest's resources. They probably cut wood to build homes, warm them and selling the surplus and hunted for meat, furs and trade.

Even if they didn't, we're still talking about a group of foreigners suddenly arriving and deciding that they get to decide who can and can't travel.

It's the Brecilian Forest. Who would be insane enough to try to cut down trees that could at any moment start cutting back?

[Hellion Rex]

Religious prejudice is racialized so often they may as well be the same thing. Nobody's going to look at a Vashoth qunari and perceive them as anything but adherents to the Qun.

Yes, but I'm talking about Petrice specifically. Religious prejudice and racism don't have to be intertwined with every Chantry leader.

[Samahl]

Not really. I live in the UK and not only is it not really a slur but all of the actual gypsies here are white Irish catholics. 

 

They are also incredibly annoying because they squat illegally, are impossible to move and leave all their rubbish behind when they do eventually go. You can say goodbye to your property value.  

 

The term itself still has a history of antiziganism, which still exists in the UK.

[TK514]

It's certainly perfectly legal. But I just think it's problematic. The Dalish squat because they don't have any home to call their own, and even if the fall of the Dales is entirely the Dalish's fault, it's the fault of their ancestors 700 years ago.

 

The only solution we're offering here is that we should take them all prisoner, quash their culture and demand they submit to humans. It's certainly not my idea of justice.

 

And again, I don't think you can use Ishmael as a point about why the Dalish are so incredibly dangerous. Tahrone was almost undoubtedly trained by the circle, and she set Xebeneck loose on Kirkwall. A bunch of random adventurers screwed with Gaxkang. These demons want to be unleashed on the world, and they're perfectly happy to manipulate any mortal, Dalish, Andrastian, Tevinter, whatever.

 

 

I hit enter too soon, and this all moves too quickly for edits to be useful.

 

You could turn around the argument that even if humans are at fault, it was the fault of their ancestors 700 years ago, so they shouldn't be blamed or punished today.  I don't actually support either argument, but it goes both ways.

 

I'm not sure where justice has anything to do with it.  This isn't about justice, nor should it be.  There is no justice to be found anywhere in this situation, from either side.

 

You could also make the argument that the society of the Dales is already extinct.  Unless the Kingdom of the Dales was comprised of nomadic clans with a strict hierarchy of two mages per clan (when possible) who had leadership over the clans' hunter groups and crafters, and who wandered Thedas (or just the Dales) looking for historical artifacts only coming together once a decade or so, then the people of the Dales are long gone.  They did not survive the Exalted March, and these groups that call themselves the Dalish have no more claim to the land than any other 'squatters'.

[Master Warder Z_]

It's the Brecilian Forest. Who would be insane enough to try to cut down trees that could at any moment start cutting back?

 

Apparently there were settlements there before the initial Dalish arrival that were promptly erm...Abandoned after their arrival due to events.

 

Besides its just a stone's throw from Gwaren anyway, it isn't as if there isn't a major hub of trade nearby.

[Dean_the_Young]

If we're going to start talking about moral/legal principles that not everyone will agree on, I will say in turn that it's the obligation of religious powers to not launch prosecution and conversion attempts upon those who don't follow their religion, and for sovereign nations to be governed by representations of their people. The lack of all of which is why the Dalish haven't assimilated.

 

There is no widely accepted obligation, in our societies or Thedas, for religions to not seek converts. There is a right in our world, known as freedom of religion, to allow religious people to try. They are expected to respect refusal from individuals, but governments are not permitted to make the choice of refusal for the people either.

 

There is no political theory in Thedas for sovereign nations to be governed by representations of their people. No one, except arguably the mages, practices it, and except in purely tautological terms of 'The People' neither do the Dalish practice it. It certainly has not been one of their stated objections or rationals for their refusal to be involved in the Alienages either- you hear far less objections about representation and far more words about 'pride' and racial identity arguments.
 

[pallascedar]

I hit enter too soon, and this all moves too quickly for edits to be useful.

 

You could turn around the argument that even if humans are at fault, it was the fault of their ancestors 700 years ago, so they shouldn't be blamed or punished today.  I don't actually support either argument, but it goes both ways.

 

I'm not sure where justice has anything to do with it.  This isn't about justice, nor should it be.  There is no justice to be found anywhere in this situation, from either side.

 

You could also make the argument that the society of the Dales is already extinct.  Unless the Kingdom of the Dales was comprised of nomadic clans with a strict hierarchy of two mages per clan (when possible) who had leadership over the clans' hunter groups and crafters, and who wandered Thedas (or just the Dales) looking for historical artifacts only coming together once a decade or so, then the people of the Dales are long gone.  They did not survive the Exalted March, and these groups that call themselves the Dalish have no more claim to the land than any other 'squatters'.

 

Yeah, I don't necessarily think the solution to the Dalish conflict is to give them the Dales. Why do they deserve it? I mean, they certainly deserve it less than the thousands of city elves who live in Halamshiral.

 

I'm just kinda opposed to the whole "Well let's just wipe them out because they shot first 700 years ago." rhetoric. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Yes, but I'm talking about Petrice specifically. Religious prejudice and racism don't have to be intertwined with every Chantry leader.

Well, considering the main practitioners of the Qun are all of the same race the difference here is probably muddled for convenience 

[Xilizhra]

There is no widely accepted obligation, in our societies or Thedas, for religions to not seek converts. There is a right in our world, known as freedom of religion, to allow religious people to try. They are expected to respect refusal from individuals, but governments are not permitted to make the choice of refusal for the people either.

 

There is no political theory in Thedas for sovereign nations to be governed by representations of their people. No one, except arguably the mages, practices it, and except in purely tautological terms of 'The People' neither do the Dalish practice it. It certainly has not been one of their stated objections or rationals for their refusal to be involved in the Alienages either- you hear far less objections about representation and far more words about 'pride' and racial identity arguments.
 

And the Dalish will disagree with what you state about nomads, so in-universe perspectives remain non-universal.

 

The objections of the Dalish are couched in racial-identity terms that I don't entirely agree with; I support the Dalish overall for different reasons than many of the Dalish would support themselves.

[Dean_the_Young]

The latter is closer to true. The point isn't that the Dalish shouldn't change anything, but rather that their annihilation would be unjustified.

Their annihilation would be unjustified if they refused to change anything and maintained harmful practices. The justification would be 'public menace.'

 

Note, however, that no one hear has been advocating their outright destruction instead of letting them change to practices other than public menace. Only that it is on the Dalish, as the nomads within other people's established nations, to alter their behavior first before no longer being regarded as a threat.

[Kalamah]

Because they weren't allowing people to safely travel within the forest.

It's an outlier community; it most likely relies upon the forest's resources. They probably cut wood to build homes, warm them and selling the surplus and hunted for meat, furs and trade.

Even if they didn't, we're still talking about a group of foreigners suddenly arriving and deciding that they get to decide who can and can't travel.

Okay, I know your reading comprehension is selective, but I clearly said that the Dalish are forced to flee an angry mob of humans even if Mahariel and Tamlen didn't kill any of the hunters. Therefore, the Dalish were hardly not allowing humans to safely travel the forest, it's the other way around. Additionally, the Dalish are nomads and have no lands because of humans, and the human reaction to their simple presence in the forest is being construed as a threat.

 

What right do humans have to dictate that elves cannot subsist on the same resources? Oh right, sharing with elves is out of the question and unreasonable... because the elves dare to be rightfully suspicious of humans riling up mobs to drive them out regardless of how merciful they are.

[Xilizhra]

Their annihilation would be unjustified if they refused to change anything and maintained harmful practices. The justification would be 'public menace.'

 

Note, however, that no one hear has been advocating their outright destruction instead of letting them change to practices other than public menace. Only that it is on the Dalish, as the nomads within other people's established nations, to alter their behavior first before no longer being regarded as a threat.

Actually, some have been arguing for their destruction.

I would try to put forth ideas for deals on policy, but there's really no point when we don't know the current world state, or how many things will change in Inquisition.

[Ianamus]

The term itself still has a history of antiziganism, which still exists in the UK.

 

In the UK 'gypsy' refers almost exclusively to the white Irish travelling families in the UK. Who cause a lot of very real issues for everyone else, in all honesty. 

[Master Warder Z_]

In the UK gypsy refers almost exclusively to the white Irish travelling families in the UK. Who cause a lot of very real issues for everyone else, in all honesty. 

 

The Term reminds me of Borat more then anything else to be honest...

[Dean_the_Young]

And the Dalish will disagree with what you state about nomads, so in-universe perspectives remain non-universal.

 

The Dalish deny the legitimacy of human states. In-universe and out-of-universe understanding of sovereignity would deny them.

 

The Dalish are the outliers. Their disagreement of the validity of the borders when it suits them (and the Dales ferverently believed in them) is a self-serving perspective, but not an adequate basis to evaulate their actions towards Humans (who, if we want another Dalish consensus, are patronized as children and not People).

 

 

 

 

The objections of the Dalish are couched in racial-identity terms that I don't entirely agree with; I support the Dalish overall for different reasons than many of the Dalish would support themselves.

 

Congratulations. Do try to reflect the Dalish viewpoints when suggesting Dalish motivations, rather than appealing to anachronistic liberalism the Dalish do not subscribe to.

[Dabrikishaw]

If it comes down to such a thing, I will destroy as many Dalish elves as I can because I am under no illusions of their potential hand in the early wars with humans.

[MisterJB]

Okay, I know your reading comprehension is selective, but I clearly said that the Dalish are forced to flee an angry mob of humans even if Mahariel and Tamlen didn't kill any of the hunters. Therefore, the Dalish were hardly not allowing humans to safely travel the forest, it's the other way around. Additionally, the Dalish are nomads and have no lands because of humans, and the human reaction to their simple presence in the forest is being construed as a threat.

Yes they were. Killing is not necessary to prevent mobility. Tamlen specifically says "don't come back until we Dalish have moved on."

The same happens with every clan you encounter. They all say the Dalish have camped there and the party should go elsewhere.

 

 

What right do humans have to dictate that elves cannot subsist on the same resources? Oh right, sharing with elves is out of the question and unreasonable... because the elves dare to be rightfully suspicious of humans riling up mobs to drive them out regardless of how merciful they are.

First, the elves are no more interested in sharing anything. They arrive and threaten people to stay away until they move on.

 

Second, the right the humans have is that it is their land. The Brecilian Forest, for instance, belongs to the people of Ferelden. They and they alone have a right to its resources.

If the Dalish wish to lay claim to by right of their arrows, then they also shouldn't complain if the King decided to run them off.

[Ianamus]

Spoiler

 

Obviously this isn't a "thing" outside the UK!

 

Definitely for the best 

[Dean_the_Young]

Okay, I know your reading comprehension is selective, but I clearly said that the Dalish are forced to flee an angry mob of humans even if Mahariel and Tamlen didn't kill any of the hunters. Therefore, the Dalish were hardly not allowing humans to safely travel the forest, it's the other way around. Additionally, the Dalish are nomads and have no lands because of humans, and the human reaction to their simple presence in the forest is being construed as a threat.

 

 

It's both. The Dalish held the act of murder/no murder over the humans who approached, just as the humans were a threat to the Dalish presence in the area. Both sides were in a position to dictate the safety of travel in the forest, which is far beyond a simple presence.

 

 

 

 

What right do humans have to dictate that elves cannot subsist on the same resources? Oh right, sharing with elves is out of the question and unreasonable... because the elves dare to be rightfully suspicious of humans riling up mobs to drive them out regardless of how merciful they are.

 

Sharing implies mutual distribution. The Dalish would have to give something back. If the Dalish receive Human resources to leave in peace, they're being bribed. If the Dalish take local resources the Humans base their livelihood on, they're acting as locusts.

 

It's hard to say the Humans aren't just as rightfully suspicious of the Dalish as well when the context of the encounter is one in which murder isn't even treated as a taboo. The objection to murdering the human isn't 'holy crap you're a murderer!', but 'sigh, we'll have to move now'- the same resignation and conclusion you get if you don't commit murder.

 

Both sides face legitimate threats from the other.

[Kalamah]

Yes they were. Killing is not necessary to prevent mobility. Tamlen specifically says "don't come back until we Dalish have moved on."

The same happens with every clan you encounter. They all say the Dalish have camped there and the party should go elsewhere.

 

 

First, the elves are no more interested in sharing anything. They arrive and threaten people to stay away until they move on.

 

Second, the right the humans have is that it is their land. The Brecilian Forest, for instance, belongs to the people of Ferelden. They and they alone have a right to its resources.

If the Dalish wish to lay claim to by right of their arrows, then they also shouldn't complain if the King decided to run them off.

And here we've come right back to square one, with you acting as if the Dalish have no right to exist on lands that aren't "theirs" while ignoring they have no lands because of humans taking them over and driving them out, and acting as if their hostility toward humans happened in a magical vacuum wherein the only possible reason they're hostile is because they're illegal squatters who resent being chased out of anywhere they "claim" temporarily just to survive, which essentially means you don't think they have a right to survival because human supremacy.

 

Reminder that this all started centuries ago because humans decided they didn't want to coexist peacefully with elves, again and again, and kept driving elves out of their own lands for reasons of being unable to share, and then accusing the elves of being hostile squatters.  Your logic is flawed.

[Jazzpha]

You bring up an interesting question;

What reason does a human noble from the Free Marches have for being at a peace conference between the Chantry, Templars, and Mages that is being held in Ferelden? That's a bit far afield both factionally and geographically. Maybe they're on a pilgrimage to the Ashes? Should be interesting to find out.

Yeah, I'm thinking something along those lines for the less "political" options. If the Fade explosion that causes the Breach and creates the Inquisitor kills thousands of people, it's not like someone just set off a cherry bomb in a peace conference toilet. That thing has a serious blast radius.

[Xilizhra]

Congratulations. Do try to reflect the Dalish viewpoints when suggesting Dalish motivations, rather than appealing to anachronistic liberalism the Dalish do not subscribe to.

Do you believe that a Dalish Inquisitor's defense of the Dalish people will have to be based on notions of racial purity and the like? Because nothing like that was mandated in DAO.

[Dean_the_Young]

Do you believe that a Dalish Inquisitor's defense of the Dalish people will have to be based on notions of racial purity and the like? Because nothing like that was mandated in DAO.

'And the like.' The Dalish Warden never had to be based off of racial purity, but the Dalish Warden always had to be compatible with in-universe rationals and justifications. I expect the Dalish Inquisitor's defense of the Dalish people, if one is ever offered (and it may not) to be the same.

 

Racial purity may be available as a choice. Appeals to Enlightenment political theory or anachronist ideologies will not. The Inquisitor will no more create a system of democratic accountability than the Arl of Amaratherine could establish a constitution and establish federalism in their reign.