891 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

No, I have not been talking about who was "in the wrong" at all. Only that what they did warrants a reaction, and you can't blame others for reacting the way they did.

 

 

 

Ok, yes, if one side is attacked for whatever reason, in general you can expect the side being attacked to fight back. But sometimes the side being attacked is partially responsible for the reason that the other side wanted to attack them. It doesn't make the attack right, but it does allow for some of the fault to be on the one being attacked.

 

 

And I've been talking about a collective vs a collective. People with actual governments. You may wish to prove my reasoning wrong by applying it to something else that isn't at all alike, but I won't let you because they aren't at all the same, as I've stated and as I've shown. The mages weren't a collective body during what's considered "The first strike". The Dales were. Case closed.

I'm not really seeking to prove your reasoning wrong, I'm just trying to understand it, is all. I only made the connection to the mages to try to gain further understanding. If that is not going to help, then I won't pursue it further.

[Colonelkillabee]

She called for the vote. The mages voted to fight. How is that her fault ?

They only voted to fight on the third time, actually. After the templars already overreacted thanks to her constant poking.

[Colonelkillabee]

Ok, yes, if one side is attacked for whatever reason, in general you can expect the side being attacked to fight back. But sometimes the side being attacked is partially responsible for the reason that the other side wanted to attack them. It doesn't make the attack right, but it does allow for some of the fault to be on the one being attacked.

 

I'm not really seeking to prove your reasoning wrong, I'm just trying to understand it, is all. I only made the connection to the mages to try to gain further understanding. If that is not going to help, then I won't pursue it further.

My reasoning is very simple. Blame doesn't matter. Cut and dry, Dales attacked, Dales started war, Dales lost. There's nothing else that matters in any of that except to make the losers of said war feel better about their fate with blame.

[TEWR]

 

 Tevinter involvement or not, there was never any hope of the mages actually winning.

 

Eh, I disagree. But I disagree mainly because of how I would've led the rebel mages. There certainly would've been hope of winning.

[Colonelkillabee]

Eh, I disagree. But I disagree mainly because of how I would've led the rebel mages. There certainly would've been hope of winning.

Against the chantry? I don't see it. The chantry has way too many zealous followers. The mages are just too few, and lack actual soldiers to fight a proper war. Every force needs run of the mill foot soldiers.

[Colonelkillabee]

Also, sorry if I come off as hostile, that's my debate tone

[TEWR]

You would first have to address a lot of the core fears people have against the mages. The second is a proper understanding of warfare (magic can compensate for a lot of things soldiers can do, though it's not all-powerful). Also, critical locations, like the Circles. Kinloch Hold and the Gallows for instance are excellent strategic locations, mainly because they can't be besieged all that well (and the mages would have an excellent means of raining hell down upon enemy ships). Also, a steady stream of lyrium to give them that extra edge. No doubt the Circles would still have a lot of their stores remaining.

 

I'm not saying it would be easy mind you (war never is) but it is possible.

 

I will say this, Fiona's decision to break away, while one I support being made, was made at the wrong time. For reasons Vivienne states and for the obvious she probably didn't even understand how to fight a war.

[Evamitchelle]

They only voted to fight on the third time, actually. After the templars already overreacted thanks to her constant poking.

 

They voted for a first time after what happened in Kirkwall. They voted no, and then the College of Enchanters was disbanded.

They tried to vote a second time a year later, after increased restrictions and learning that the Rite of Tranquility was reversible. They were interrupted by Lord Seeker Lambert who had the templars & seekers attack them.

They voted for a third time a couple of months later. They voted yes.

 

I don't see how it paints Fiona in a bad light that they voted several times. Months/years passed between votes, the mages changed their mind over time because the templars were imposing more and more restrictions. 

[Colonelkillabee]

You would first have to address a lot of the core fears people have against the mages. The second is a proper understanding of warfare (magic can compensate for a lot of things soldiers can do, though it's not all-powerful). Also, critical locations, like the Circles. Kinloch Hold and the Gallows for instance are excellent strategic locations, mainly because they can't be besieged all that well (and the mages would have an excellent means of raining hell down upon enemy ships).

 

I'm not saying it would be easy mind you (war never is) but it is possible.

 

I will say this, Fiona's decision to break away, while one I support being made, was made at the wrong time. For reasons Vivienne states and for the obvious she probably didn't even understand how to fight a war.

Agreed. My problem with Fiona isn't that I think she's wrong, but that she's stupid. I certainly support the rebellion, just not how it was handled.

[TEWR]

Also, sorry if I come off as hostile, that's my debate tone

 

Don't worry you're fine. Haha you'll know if I get hostile myself. I tend to clearly lose my patience through text. Or swear a lot in one post. But that doesn't happen too often.

[Colonelkillabee]

They voted for a first time after what happened in Kirkwall. They voted no, and then the College of Enchanters was disbanded.

They tried to vote a second time a year later, after increased restrictions and learning that the Rite of Tranquility was reversible. They were interrupted by Lord Seeker Lambert who had the templars & seekers attack them.

They voted for a third time a couple of months later. They voted yes.

 

I don't see how it paints Fiona in a bad light that they voted several times. Months/years passed between votes, the mages changed their mind over time because the templars were imposing more and more restrictions. 

It's because each time, she was the one pushing it. You can't just vote to leave chantry control and expect peace. There was no strategy to it, it was just reactionary and stupid. This sort of reminds me of the Stormcloak situation, but the difference there in Elder Scrolls is that Ulfric was smart enough to get support through his actions. Fiona put herself and the mages alone with no plan of action.

[phaonica]

My reasoning is very simple. Blame doesn't matter. Cut and dry, Dales attacked, Dales started war, Dales lost. There's nothing else that matters in any of that except to make the losers of said war feel better about their fate with blame.

 

I just feel like there is a great deal more than that that matters, and not just for the purpose of blame. It feels like claiming, for example, that there is nothing that matters about the war between Andraste and Tevinter except Andraste attacked, Andraste started war, Andraste lost. Nothing else about that war matters. I feel like there was a great deal more about that war that mattered, and that it's the same for this war we've been discussing.

[phaonica]

Also, sorry if I come off as hostile, that's my debate tone

 

It's okay. We all get frustrated. Your debate tone is much less hostile than some. I appreciate when we're all aware of it and try to control it. It's hard to do when you're super frustrated. I'm sorry to be so frustrating

 

At any rate, I need to be going now. I'm sure I'll be back here tomorrow. Take care.

[Evamitchelle]

It's because each time, she was the one pushing it. You can't just vote to leave chantry control and expect peace. There was no strategy to it, it was just reactionary and stupid. This sort of reminds me of the Stormcloak situation, but the difference there in Elder Scrolls is that Ulfric was smart enough to get support through his actions. Fiona put herself and the mages alone with no plan of action.

 

Well she definitely wasn't expecting peace. "I believe it is clear to everyone here what they are: we submit, or we fight.[...] If we fight, we fight as one. We declare the Circle dead, and with it any attempt by the templars or the Chantry to govern us. This will mean war." 

[Colonelkillabee]

I just feel like there is a great deal more than that that matters, and not just for the purpose of blame. It feels like claiming, for example, that there is nothing that matters about the war between Andraste and Tevinter except Andraste attacked, Andraste started war, Andraste lost. Nothing else about that war matters. I feel like there was a great deal more about that war that mattered, and that it's the same for this war we've been discussing.

It depends on what you're talking about. If people wanted to play the blame game for who started the war, and lead to her death, then yea that's all on her really.

 

Everyone suffered from the blights, and needless to say, the tevinter got more than their fair share of punishment from their own stupidity. Andraste didn't really need to start that war, she chose to, and used the blights to justify it. And divine right, which I do believe she had, but that's another matter entirely. I'm just talking militarily here.

 

And with the Dales, people want to play the blame game, and the blame goes to the Dales for the war, I'll say "mainly" if that's a good enough compromise for you, because at the end of the day, they attacked, and the humans were forced to retaliate. Their bad relations didn't make them do a stupid thing like trespass on land that they knew was hostile, didn't make them sack their city. These were their stupid decisions, whether they were slighted in the past or not.

 

Militarily speaking, they started the war. They're to blame for their fate in losing it.

[Colonelkillabee]

It's okay. We all get frustrated. Your debate tone is much less hostile than some. I appreciate when we're all aware of it and try to control it. It's hard to do when you're super frustrated. I'm sorry to be so frustrating

 

At any rate, I need to be going now. I'm sure I'll be back here tomorrow. Take care.

Oops, I made a response after you left. I know that's annoying since you can't respond back till later.

 

Anyway, yea no hard feelings from me, and I mean nothing by my tones when debating Goodnight.

[Colonelkillabee]

Well she definitely wasn't expecting peace. "I believe it is clear to everyone here what they are: we submit, or we fight.[...] If we fight, we fight as one. We declare the Circle dead, and with it any attempt by the templars or the Chantry to govern us. This will mean war." 

True. Which is why she shouldn't whine so much when **** went sour. This is what you wanted. This is what you expected. Own it.

 

For the record, I think the chantry's impossible expectations and the Templar's "trigger finger" are more to blame here than anything else. Fiona was the one that took advantage of that though, same as Anders. Worse, because she saw exactly how that turned out and the others still wanted to move with caution.

 

Which given recent events with Kirkwall would have been smart.

[Colonelkillabee]

And since I'm signing off, just to be extra clear of my position so there's no confusion when people pick up later, I look at war in a very simple way, the way we look at fights in my part.

 

Why you chose to fight doesn't matter, who said what doesn't matter. If you raise those fists, you better be ready to throw down. You have no one to blame for your loss but yourself.

 

The Dales put their dukes up and took a swing, got some good licks, but in the end just couldn't measure up. Though to be fair, they shot themselves in the foot prior.

 

They bit off more than they could chew basically. You can't say, "Yea I lost that fight and got knocked out, but he started the fight, man!" It makes you sound like a whiny ******. Own up to the loss and either take another swing or zip your mouth. Take your loss like a man, don't cry about how you were slighted.

 

The Dales can be as stubborn as they wish, can take pride in their little resistance all they want. But no one's impressed. Not me anyway. Because at the end of the day, they are who they are because they lost and couldn't own up to their own mistakes (generally). And that in my book makes the Dales a bunch of whiny bitches.

[MisterJB]

So, in the middle of all this, no one has yet mentioned that the reason Siona's sister was killed in the first place was because a human had been kidnapped.
Or are we assuming the elves were innocent of that?

[Evamitchelle]

So, in the middle of all this, no one has yet mentioned that the reason Siona's sister was killed in the first place was because a human had been kidnapped.
Or are we assuming the elves were innocent of that?

 

The codex entry says "Rumors of an abduction stirred. As always, their Chantry was swift to spread lies. In haste and anger, they killed Siona's sister for wandering too near the Hunters' path." This is prefaced by the author saying "Let here the truth be kept" and telling what the Emerald Knights did at Red Crossing. If he truthfully told what happened at RC it makes no sense for him to lie on their involvement in the abduction. 

 

Considering humans are still making up stories about the Dalish kidnapping human babies to sacrifice them in blood magic rituals to the elven gods, it makes sense that they were making up the same rumors when they were about to go to war with them. 

[MisterJB]

I imagine some human disappeared and the people assumed elves were responsible. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't. Even those who set themselves to tell the truth can be biased and it's not hard to imagine the Emerald Knights would not know if some random elf had killed a human and buried his/her body in the Forrest.

[MisterJB]

For coming too close to their camp. And if you let them go, they bring armed men to drive the Dalish off. So, you were saying...?

Well, I imagine a small community living near a forest will rely upon it for fur, food, trade, wood, etc.
Will they just cease activities until the dalish decide to move on?

[Dean_the_Young]

But that's just the thing; Inquisition claims that the Dalish have always been wrong, about nearly everything in fact.

 

They are not afforded many, if any, meaningful apologists/good guys; they do not get a Giselle, a Cassandra, a Cullen, a Leliana, a Bethany, a Malcolm, a Justinia. They get Blood Mages, xenophobes, pridefully idiotic Keepers, and outright bigots. And among all that rabble a few meaningless exceptions are born. But ultimately, they were the savages that got too big for their britches and they paid dearly for it. And now all that they can do is blame the humans for their problems when they have no one to blame but themselves. The entirety of their identity, a lie. Their noble cause borne of ignorance.

 

They are an absolute joke; a caricature and nothing more.

 

A deconstruction of a myth is hardly a caricature. The caricature would be the myth itself.

 

The Dalish have never, at any point in the series, been presented as particularly well grounded or vindicated in their knowledge of history. From the start they were acknowledged (and self-admitted) to be building a society off of ignorance of the past- a natural consequence of which is that when you recreate history that no one knows anything substantial about, you tend to create the history you want rather than the history that was. This was pointed out years ago amongst the fan base.

 

The sins of Dalish culture and weakness of their history have been obvious from the start, and weren't exactly pardoned by the historical narrative they kept. Blood Mages, xenophobes, pridefully idiotic Keepers, outright bigots... none of these were ever presented as good. Ever. They were always moral flaws on Dalish society, regardless of history. The issue is that people (fans, the Dalish themselves) were content to gloss over or downplay the bigotry of the present because History excused it.

 

Well, when you have a Cultural history which admits to being founded on ignorance more than truth, that turns out to not be true... the History excuse to nastiness turns out to be just that. An excuse.

 

The question facing the Dalish going forward is what else they will be, in the present and in the future, when the excuse of History is taken away from them. And that is a topic in which the Dalish can believe in something other than a caricature of the past.

 

(Why History of the long-distant past was used to justify the sins of the present is itself a peculiar thing, but enough on that.)

[Dean_the_Young]

It's really not. This may have been an "Exalted March," but all evidence points to this being a war between Orlais and the Dales, including the fact that it was almost exclusively fought by troops from Orlais. 

 

Technically incorrect. Orlais was the only kingdom that sent troops, but nothing suggests that religiously-motivated volunteers didn't come from other nations. Perhaps better phrased as 'including the fact that Orlais was the only nation which committed forces.'

 

But the overall point that it was more a national war than a race-war is supported by the fact that only a single human nation was inclined to join in.

[Dean_the_Young]

There is grounds to suspect blood magic may have also been involved in the decision to sell everyone into Tevinter slavery. Avernus showed us that it doesn't have to be overt. A simple nudge is all that's needed. The person making the call would simply believe it was their own choice. And considering Alexius is allying with a Tevinter supremacist cult, who's to say he hasn't done blood magic as well?

 

However, according to the wiki (whom I'll verify on my Dalish run) Alexius used his powers over time to conscript the Mages before the Inquisition could even get there.

 

'Fiona making a poor decision' isn't really 'grounds to suspect blood magic.' Fiona has a history of bad decision making.

 

Grounds to suspect blood magic would come from something else in the game... but there is none. Neither Fiona or anyone else ever raise up the idea that her decision was exceptionally out of character for her, or make any suggestion or implication of blood magic being involved... and if there's anyone who should want to make the defense of mental compulsion, it would be Fiona. She doesn't.

 

The game's narrative is simple. Using the power of time magic, Alexius traveled to Redcliffe immediately after the breach. Everything else there was a matter of free will by the mages- they were not conscripted, Fiona sold them into servitude in exchange for an offer of protection.