891 réponses à ce sujet

[Colonelkillabee]

I disagree. Inquisition paints the Dalish as ignorant, bigoted fools, and their ancestors as wild savages, not completely without reason for sure. But they were at fault; they were the 'bad guys'. Now they have to restart knowing the role that their ancestors played and knowing that they were mislead.

 

And it's not just Inquisition; Bioware has consistently presented the Dalish and their ideals as diabolically villainous at worst and foolishly idealistic at best.

 

The Chantry and its Andrastians shine like a beacon of light in comparison. I use the "Chantry and its Andrastians" to signify the need to separate the humans into groups; "human" is too broad a term in Inquisition.

Wrong, they were at fault for their getting their asses handed to them, yes. But now when we start talking about black hats and such, we HAVE to go into blame and morality and who's right and who's wrong and blah blah. And in that case, you must take into consideration the humans and their busy body Chantry, and I'm not the type to just assume the elves' version of the chantry's imposing is false, because it's very in character with how we see them acting already.

 

Perhaps it isn't 100 percent true, but enough of it likely is. No one just starts ****** around with someone else for absolutely no reason.

 

The ONLY thing Inquisition showed was that 1. The elves weakened themselves and 2. That they were stupid.

 

However, this does not change what the humans did to them in their defeat, what they did to them many years after, or what they in turn did to create hostile relations prior. If anyone thinks the elves have a black hat and the humans don't, you're lying, or idiotic.

 

But, as I said, I don't really care who's meaner than who. But I'm not going to spew bullshit and call it diamonds.

[Colonelkillabee]

There's a reason I spent so long trying to argue my point against the Dales without bringing up morality. Because war doesn't need morality to function. With morality, you can throw blame left and right, and you'll be arguing all day because it comes down always to a point of view. Which is why there is NO "black hats" in this equation.

 

But if you leave that out and look at this like an equation, it's very simple.

 

Dales attacked, Dales lost. Dales are to blame for their own fate.

 

That changes as soon as you start trying to claim that the Dales were worse than the humans.

[Dean_the_Young]

And I'm sure Viv's people never banded with the templars or manipulated the inquisitor to impose her Pro-circle agenda on the rebels right? That's what masters of the Grand Game are known for after all. Lying or twisting stories to make their agenda

Huzzah wha?

 

Vivienne is no less an exposition source than Lelianna. Just because she plays the game doesn't mean everything she says is a lie- nor is there any particular reason to disbelieve her. Vivienne is good with words, but rarely manufactures facts on the ground- which is what the pro-independence movement stands accused of doing towards the end.

 

We can have a reasonable assurance of what Vivienne tells us much like we can most other companions- Bioware dislikes compulsive liars as exposition sources unless they are deliberately revealed as exagerations/lies later.

 

Must be nice to be so high and mighty for a person not being actively hunted and lynched.

 

Peculiar change to a personal line attack. Couldn't think of a better argument about how Fiona and the mages didn't betray your professed morals?

 

Well there you go, everyone makes choices and should accept the consequences with dignity.

 

 

Depending on the circumstance they make the choices in. Part of moralilty includes understanding that people forced into bad positions make make bad choices through no fault of their own. Moral responsibility means weighing in on which.
 

 

Yes and such discord often leads to war and total annihilation. How sad that solas can appease savage spiders so that they don't attack him while he dreams yet mortals are so neurotic they cannot find common ground or live and let live among one another.

 

 

Getting a bit desperate to change the subject again, I see.

 

'There is no agreed upon version of 'fairness.''

'Spiders!'

[Steelcan]

 

Not really. "The war drained the resources of every nation in Thedas, leaving most on the brink of collapse. For the giants, it did not appear to be the damage to their armada or the loss of their soldiers, but the terrible toll upon the Rivaini population that prompted their retreat. When the Third New Exalted March had all but massacred the people of Kont-aar without even chipping the Qunari occupying force, the giants finally withdrew." Codex entry DA2: The Llomerryn Accords

Ok, but they were also withdrawing and being forced out all across Thedas, Tevinter comes to mind.  Furthermore, that codex is just speculation on the author's part, the qunari didn't exactly spell out why they did or the author would have used more definitive language.

 

Yes the Andrastian nations were war exhausted, but the qunari were the ones losing ground, not just in Rivain but all across the front.  They'd have still lost it one way or another.

[EmissaryofLies]

Wrong, they were at fault for their getting their asses handed to them, yes. But now when we start talking about black hats and such, we HAVE to go into blame and morality and who's right and who's wrong and blah blah. And in that case, you must take into consideration the humans and their busy body Chantry, and I'm not the type to just assume the elves' version of the chantry's imposing is false, because it's very in character with how we see them acting already.

They were at fault for their bigotry leading them to start something that they failed to finish. Then blaming the winners for being "meanies". The Chantry's expansionist history is well documented and they may have acted with or without the attack on Red Crossing. Sadly, that's a hypothetical.
 

Perhaps it isn't 100 percent true, but enough of it likely is. No one just starts ****** around with someone else for absolutely no reason.

The Elves didn't like the humans from the start what with their belief that humans were responsible for their fall from immortality. To find one of their own fraternizing with a human? Like waving the red in front of a bull.
 

The ONLY thing Inquisition showed was that 1. The elves weakened themselves and 2. That they were stupid.
 
However, this does not change what the humans did to them in their defeat, what they did to them many years after, or what they in turn did to create hostile relations prior. If anyone thinks the elves have a black hat and the humans don't, you're lying, or idiotic.

Inquisition showed that the elves know nothing of their past down to the very markings on their faces. Their pride, borne in ignorance, their anger, misplaced.

The Chantry's hands will never be clean, certainly. But there is something to be said about their honesty regarding this particular situation. They were the offended party, not the offenders.

The humans as you claim, have been allowed a depth of diversity while the Dalish are consistently hostile, xenophobic and stupidly stubborn.
 

But, as I said, I don't really care who's meaner than who. But I'm not going to spew bullshit and call it diamonds.

It is not about who is meaner than who. It is about prideful arrogance being put in its place and a failure to learn from mistakes.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Huzzah wha?

 

Vivienne is no less an exposition source than Lelianna. Just because she plays the game doesn't mean everything she says is a lie- nor is there any particular reason to disbelieve her. Vivienne is good with words, but rarely manufactures facts on the ground- which is what the pro-independence movement stands accused of doing towards the end.

 

We can have a reasonable assurance of what Vivienne tells us much like we can most other companions- Bioware dislikes compulsive liars as exposition sources unless they are deliberately revealed as exagerations/lies later.

 

Peculiar change to a personal line attack. Couldn't think of a better argument about how Fiona and the mages didn't betray your professed morals?

 

 

Depending on the circumstance they make the choices in. Part of moralilty includes understanding that people forced into bad positions make make bad choices through no fault of their own. Moral responsibility means weighing in on which.
 

 

Getting a bit desperate to change the subject again, I see.

 

'There is no agreed upon version of 'fairness.''

'Spiders!'

Vivienne also colors the facts if it doesn't coincide with her narrow bias mindset. Her accusations at cole being a demon makes her testimonies at least suspect.

 

Also you're the one being defensive. It was not a personal attack to point out that to you selling yourself to slavery in the case of safe harbour from annihilation is something you would never do but it is hypocritical as its only a hypothetical to you. We don't know what one would do in those circumstances but I don't stand in judgement of those who did desperate things because their circumstances were dire. As for Fiona, I understand that she was entrapped to do what she did and following the context of how it happened, was not something she would normally have done had external factors such as manipulation both political and magical were not imposed upon her. More than I can say for the templars who's only defense was ignorance. I remember the riddle the spirit of Hessarian told to the warden:  "She wields the broken sword, and separates true kings from tyrants. Of what do I speak?" The answer is "Mercy."

And if one is truly just, they would be understanding of the mages circumstances was beyond their control.

 

That is my concept of fairness which is relevant to what we were discussing.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ok, but they were also withdrawing and being forced out all across Thedas, Tevinter comes to mind.  Furthermore, that codex is just speculation on the author's part, the qunari didn't exactly spell out why they did or the author would have used more definitive language.

 

Yes the Andrastian nations were war exhausted, but the qunari were the ones losing ground, not just in Rivain but all across the front.  They'd have still lost it one way or another.

The Qunari were losing ground because they were withdrawing after seeing what was happening to the population in the war torn areas. The Qunari war machine still fucntioned, they weren't losing many men, they were still operating efficiently. The Qunari just didn't want to fight over a barren and lifeless wasteland.

 

That being said, if the war had dragged on, it is probable that both the Qunari AND the rest of Thedas would ahve collapsed in on themselves from the strain of the war. There would be no victors, only losers.

[herkles]

I thought we we were discussing elves not the mage templar war.

[Sports72Xtrm]

I thought we we were discussing elves not the mage templar war.

Very well I will stop responding now even if Dean continues. Have the last word then Dean.

[Steelcan]

I'm curious, what is the Dalish supporter's rationale for the elves standing by during the Second Blight?

 

and yes it's on topic, it led to the border tensions that then escalated into an attack on Orlesian land

[raging_monkey]

I thought we we were discussing elves not the mage templar war.

thought we were talking bout cakes

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

I'm curious, what is the Dalish supporter's rationale for the elves standing by during the Second Blight?
 
and yes it's on topic, it led to the border tensions that then escalated into an attack on Orlesian land

Isn't it usually "Orlais was the enemy of the Dales so they shouldn't have to help defend them from the darkspawn"

[TheJediSaint]

Isn't it usually "Orlais was the enemy of the Dales so they shouldn't have to help defend them from the darkspawn"

That didn't stop Olais from trying to help rival human nations during the Blights.

[Br3admax]

I'm curious, what is the Dalish supporter's rationale for the elves standing by during the Second Blight?

 

and yes it's on topic, it led to the border tensions that then escalated into an attack on Orlesian land

Given the Warden's treaties, being stupid, I imagine.

[phaonica]

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.

 

I wanted to let you know that I am back and that I was thinking about stepping out of this discussion for a while. I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, I just need a break.

[Colonelkillabee]

snip

Please do not go through my post inch for inch, the format is annoying. And anyway you haven't said anything that changes the fact that the humans were being dicks as well, and thus the morality issue is moot. Both were dicks, there is NO black hat.

 

If you bring morality into this, you're instantly wrong for claiming the Dales are worse, period. No wiggle room there.

 

Stay away from that or you expose yourself as biased and bullheaded.

[Colonelkillabee]

I wanted to let you know that I am back and that I was thinking about stepping out of this discussion for a while. I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, I just need a break.

No problem at all, you don't have to give me the reason for no response, but that's very considerate of you

[Dave of Canada]

I'm curious, what is the Dalish supporter's rationale for the elves standing by during the Second Blight?

 

They were trying to figure out what they could blame on Humans next.

[raging_monkey]

No problem at all, you don't have to give me the reason for no response, but that's very considerate of you

its great when courtesy shines on the bsn right

[Addai]

I'm curious, what is the Dalish supporter's rationale for the elves standing by during the Second Blight?
 
and yes it's on topic, it led to the border tensions that then escalated into an attack on Orlesian land

What is Loghain's rationale for refusing Orlesian aid, or Orlais' decision to not contest his will and to stand by while Ferelden falls?
 
People do not always act rationally or with a long-term perspective.
 
Also, it's notable that you apparently expect a "Dalish supporter" to never admit that the Dalish do anything wrong, or to stop liking them if they do admit that.
 

They were trying to figure out what they could blame on Humans next.

Does this kind of comment add anything?

[Steelcan]

Loghain refused Orlesian aid because he was paranoid, justifiably so, about Orlesian territorial ambitions.  Furthermore he didn't believe it was a real Blight, and on top of that you can argue that he abandoned Cailan because the situation was hopeless because of the signal coming too late.

 

Its not comparable to sitting back and watching darkspawn sack Monstimmard

[Br3admax]

More than a decade goes by and the Dales do nothing. Totes comparable to Loghain not wanting help from Orlais. Though this statement implies we support Loghain's decision. Or that Loghain was wrong that Celene was trying to take over Ferelden. 

[Dave of Canada]

Does this kind of comment add anything?

 

The gloating satisfies me after being called all sorts of hateful things over the years for refusing to bow down to the consensus that Dalish were blameless.

 

I have to take my victories where I can.

[Addai]

Loghain refused Orlesian aid because he was paranoid, justifiably so, about Orlesian territorial ambitions.  Furthermore he didn't believe it was a real Blight, and on top of that you can argue that he abandoned Cailan because the situation was hopeless because of the signal coming too late.
 
Its not comparable to sitting back and watching darkspawn sack Monstimmard

1. Say something extreme about the elves.
2. Someone brings up a comparable situation among humans.
3. Point out the nuance and mitigating circumstances that led the humans to do what they did.
4. Insist that there is no nuance or mitigating circumstance for the elves.

Have I got this about right? Oh, maybe 3.5 would be "demand proof of the existence of said mitigating circumstance and reject hearsay if it contravenes your assumption."

The gloating satisfies me after being called all sorts of hateful things over the years for refusing to bow down to the consensus that Dalish were blameless.

I have to take my victories where I can.

Maybe you need to get out of the forum more often.

[Colonelkillabee]

Loghain refused Orlesian aid because he was paranoid, justifiably so, about Orlesian territorial ambitions.  Furthermore he didn't believe it was a real Blight, and on top of that you can argue that he abandoned Cailan because the situation was hopeless because of the signal coming too late.

 

Its not comparable to sitting back and watching darkspawn sack Monstimmard

The elves and humans are enemies and somehow it's hard to understand why they weren't crazy about defending humans from the blight?

 

The blight endangers everyone yes, but lets be real here. In their place, humans wouldn't jump to fight for elves either.