Ce sujet est fermé
yes they have, in fact peaceful revolutions have a much better track record, the Civil Rights movement in America, Gandhi in India, Solidarity in Poland
There's a difference between war and conflict, and the dead of the Solidarty movement attest that it was indeed a bloody conflict. Civil-rights movement era US saw plenty of violence and not all Gandhis followers were non-violent. If you just lie down and take it, you get what they give you.
This.
You need both. Violence is a tool like any other and can be wisely used or not.
But asking someone who benefits from keeping you down not to keep you down is...chances are that not gonna work.
talking as my warden... "kill all humans, save the mages"
Honestly that sounds like six kinds of cheese and all kinds of crazy.
There's a difference between war and conflict, and the dead of the Solidarty movement attest that it was indeed a bloody conflict. Civil-rights movement era US saw plenty of violence and not all Gandhis followers were non-violent. If you just lie down and take it, you get what they give you.
but the movement was not itself violent, there was polic brutality, crackdowns etc...
but those who were disenfranchised were not raiding armories and attacking civilians, certainly not the mainstream groups.
Compare those movements to other rebellions such as Spartacus, the American confederacy, the Easter Uprising
I have little patience for zealots of any stripe
So your fervor upon rude Dalish guards is equal to the fervor of overzealous templars?
the elves have always been like the Indians in north central and south america irl and believe it or not Indians had empires and a long history of them replace the word chief with nobleman and the look on them seems more like a Scottish government.
so i would figure y stop now with the look of the elves take what guesses at the ancient empires of the american Indians and work form there so yes to land meetings but there will also be citys such as the Mayan pyramids in Georgia high in the mountains were meetings were held and other such events so im sure if they stop and not go in the direction of Mongolians they could see that for inspiration they would only have to look at the ways of the Mayans and there vast empire that spammed north central and south america.
thustly i see it to be each keeper is a leader of a clan several clans make a tribe and several tribes make a nation.
look at it as a group dictatorship mixed with democracy because of keepers being chosen by there clan i point to the creeks of southern USA as a prime example all creeks are descends of Mayans and thusly its in the clans names that still hold there heritage they all start with Maya and all these clans make the creek tribe.
so u can see how the creeks and the dalish have alot in common there both a tribes off of a ancient empire that lost alot of there knowledge to the ages and are trying to figure out there past.
so if there is any question of how the dalish could make a empire i point to there very similar irl creeks after years of wondering they settled down within a very short time and started building grate buildings as there ancient people had.
This.
You need both. Violence is a tool like any other and can be wisely used or not.
And you think the minority pissing off the majority as 90% of the population of the known world, the people who make the majority of the nobility, lawmakers and armies is a wise decision?
I don't even hide that i think armed insurgency is a joke based on sheer numeric average.
And you think the minority pissing off the majority as 90% of the population of the known world, the people who make the majority of the nobility, lawmakers and armies is a wise decision?
I don't even hide that i think armed insurgency is a joke based on sheer numeric average.
Because there has never been a conflict where a significantly smaller force defeated a larger one, whether through hit-and-run tactics or otherwise, tis true. 
So your fervor upon rude Dalish guards is equal to the fervor of overzealous templars?
I take no issue with dalish with poles up their assess about imagined slights, I take issue when they decide "hey lets go kill those shems"
and yes, I do take issue with the abusive members of the Templar order, most of Kirkwall's templars should have been put on trial and thrown out of the order especially Meredith, that rapist one, etc...
And you think the minority pissing off the majority as 90% of the population of the known world, the people who make the majority of the nobility, lawmakers and armies is a wise decision?
I don't even hide that i think armed insurgency is a joke based on sheer numeric average.
Nope. Which is exactly why I think the Dalish means of hostility are stupid. They also highly lack on the peaceful front because most humans have never seen them and will have little to no reason to give a damn what happens to them.
The CEs though? Having small riots (which they already do) can be used to their advantage. They are an influence on their countries economy however small. They are allowed into the greater part of the city, people do see them and they do interact with humans. (You do see elves wandering around lowtown and I think there's even some in hightown.). Yes they will often be put down hard. I'm not denying that. But that's the price of freedom.
The point isn't to win. It's to make it enough of an annoyance that they give you rights to be left alone because fighting you is wasting time resources or reputation.
Because there has never been a conflict where a significantly smaller force defeated a larger one, whether through hit-and-run tactics or otherwise, tis true.
said forces usually have other advantages, and the larger forces lack motivation, clear goals, the full use of force etc....
@RoamingMachine: Gandhi's "non-violent" followers were not what gave India its independence. It gave the British "moral authority" to wipe out dissidents.
@that guy: modern natives are not obsessed with looking backward to move forward. They find the value in preserving tradition without wanting to tear down the United States to put back tribes (though I'm sure some, somewhere, would want that).
The fact that one side decided to be a punching bag doesn't mean that the conflict is not violent. The fact is that they stepped up to the plate and the other side violently disagreed with them. Ergo, violent conflict.but the movement was not itself violent, there was polic brutality, crackdowns etc...
but those who were disenfranchised were not raiding armories and attacking civilians, certainly not the mainstream groups.
Compare those movements to other rebellions such as Spartacus, the American confederacy, the Easter Uprising
The fact that one side decided to be a punching bag doesn't mean that the conflict is not violent. The fact is that they stepped up to the plate and the other side violently disagreed with them. Ergo, violent conflict.
not an armed insurrection though, armed insurrections work better if you have numerical superiority, the ability to create and organize a large scale resistance movement, and plenty of capital to burn.
the elves lose on all three
Even normal people will eventually have enough of being tread on. No revolution has ever been achieved by avoiding conflict.
Except the entire road of india's sovereignty from the british empire. Or you can stick to the french method of revolution, which spoilers, didn't work.
I have little patience for zealots of any stripe
Zealotry will be my greatest tool in conquest. Why put stock in the creation of an "Elven State" (aka mega-Alienage) when they can come together as the Makers' faithful?
Living a life in a dilapidated ghetto doesn't sound like something the city elves should have to endure anymore. The city elves endure persecution and purges, while the Dalish isolate themselves from Andrastian humans who threaten them; the developers and the lore note how human lords and lynch mobs drive them off the land if they stay too long in a particular area, while the Chantry outlawed the elven religion in the Andrastian kingdoms. I think the Dalish and the city elves deserve better than the status quo they've had to endure for close to a thousand years now.
So I guess when it comes to elf supports, folks just looking to live their lives don't exist. Everyone's a frothing at the mouth revolutionary who all have a hive mind about wanting a homeland and killing blunt ears to get it.
I don't get this at all. Pro-elf fans seem to want to demonize their own supported people and make them out as violent extremist, while the so called anti-elf guys try to come up with rational solutions and depict elves as multifaceted and capable of both good and bad.
Did we enter bizarro world at some point here?
So I guess when it comes to elf supports, folks just looking to live their lives don't exist. Everyone's a frothing at the mouth revolutionary who all have a hive mind about wanting a homeland and killing blunt ears to get it.
I don't get this at all. Pro-elf fans seem to want to demonize their own supported people and make them out as violent extremist, while the so called anti-elf guys try to come up with rational solutions and depict elves as multifaceted and capable of both good and bad.
Did we enter bizarro world at some point here?
Odd isn't it?
I propose a protectorate where they can live under the grace and goodwill of Humanity, while they earn themselves some much needed brownie points, Where they can be ruled more or less by their own, have their own wealth, nobility and honor and...yet, people want a destructive war...
Maybe it's because i saw a war or two in my time, i don't care for the idea.
It's better to solve things through diplomacy, through talking then explosions, bullets and death.
Sometimes violence is needed and justified you could argue, but that's personal interpretation of a cause i guess.
Funny outlook for a former soldier i admit, Then again a lot of people have called into question the motivations and merits of the conflicts i was involved in, maybe they had a point.
Guest_BioWareMod02_*
This thread has run its course. We are done here.
Retour en haut
