1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Colonelkillabee]

I'm not going to get into a long debate here, but just going to put my opinion in as simple as possible, and as always, people can agree or disagree.

 

For me personally, it does not matter what the tensions were, the history, etc etc. If this was a court case, they wouldn't say "Well tensions were high, so the man who murdered was no more to blame than the victim". No, they'd convict the man that murdered and punish him.

 

That's how I see this. It doesn't matter what the history was, the history is indirect. The actual spark is what really matters. Which side set off that spark. Who held the smoking gun whose shot was heard around the world. Accidental death or not, it was the elves that were on human land, no matter the reason. They don't have free reign to walk around where they please anymore than the human templar stick up the asses.

 

Accidental or not, they killed a human on human land. Of course the humans are going to kill trespassers when they just murdered one of their own. Then the elves came and attacked in turn, then took land, and the humans responded eventually with the exalted march.

 

If you look at this like a court case, the elves would be the ones who are convicted here for this particular incident. Not all of human and elven history together, but this particular incident.

 

Bringing up human and elven tensions ultimately is irrelevant, and saying conflict was inevitable doesn't excuse or change the fact that intentional or not, a human died on human land while elves were trespassing, which makes them the ones that sparked the conflict, and in my eyes puts them at fault, especially when they retaliated and kept taking land. Will I blame them solely? No, but I do blame them for most of it.

 

There's a reason that the elven fans at most can say "We're both to blame" instead of "the humans are to blame". They're the ones with most to gain from that compromise, and it is an excuse. Same as Imperial fans in TES saying the Stormcloak and Imperial sides are equally bad.

 

My two cents.

[Insaner Robot]

You mean a group of armed humans murdering an elf who wasn't directly responsible for the accidental killing of his human lover, and apparently trying to kill the Emerald Knights in revenge.

 

I don't see why the humans are being absolved for all wrongdoing. No one excuses the accidental murder of the human woman, but no one forced that group of humans to murder her elven lover, or try to attack the Emerald Knights. No one excuses the actions of the elves, but both sides were wrong. Even the Dalish can admit that both sides played a role in the inception of the war and were wrong, and extend an olive branch to the current inhabitants of Red Crossing as a gesture of peace.

 

A group of villagers with whatever weapons, or what might in a pinch pass for a weapon, that they can scrounge up do not compare to armed and trained soldiers.

 

The humans are not being absolved. They (humans in general not the villagers) are responsible for the death of an unarmed elf, and probably numerous other events leading up to the then current events. However they did not murder him. They were alerted to an apparent attack to their town (think the horn-call of Buckland "Awake! Fear! Fire! Foes! Awake!"). And killed him assuming he was a hostile group attacking their town and responsible for the dead woman. Were they wrong to kill him? Obviously yes, but it must have been an easy mistake to make.

 

The elves however are responsible for the attack on Red Crossing. That's why an apology, of a sort, was attempted toward the town. The shared role you keep bringing up, seemed to me to refer to both nations being responsible for antagonising each other leading up to the war. Rather than the elves being the victims.

[Ahalvern]

Are we talking about the Dalish, or the elves? The two can not be used interchangeably, no matter how much the Dalish identify as the last of the True Elf ideal. There is no pan-elven identity movement in Thedas.

 

The Dalish are not forced into alienages. They are stateless nomads, and do not endure systemic racism as second-class citizens. The elves who do live in the alienages and face systemic racism, the city elves, do not share the Dalish views or attitudes towards history (or identity). I have not, in any way, criticized the general (or any specific) city elf perspective or policy towards history.

'They' were only victimized long ago if 'they' can be construed to unite separate entirely different peoples of radically different experiences hundreds of years and an entire culture apart.

 

I'm referring to them as "one" because the elves are one race. They have as a race suffered the result of the Exalted March by being divided, those less fortunate forced into slums for 700 years. The history you so want the elves to forget caused this divide of City and Dalish elves. Now the city elves are forced to play by the chantry rules or face punishment. They are not given the luxury to live and believe as they want.

 

As for the Dalish, true they are not as persecuted as the city elves, but they live a harsh life in a different way; forced to defend themselves at all times and unable to stay in one place for long.

 

And the reason for that all is, surprise surprise, the past. Is it so hard to understand why they cling so desperately to the past when they live the consequences each and every day? There are of course those who would claim they brought it upon themselves, in which case they can be safely dismissed as trolls.

 

At this point, a unifying theme of the Dalish plots has been that the answers don't lie in the past, but will come from moving forward. In all three games, the past did not absolve or vindicate or solve problems- it only dug up more incriminating and damning context of the Dalish themselves. Zarathian's grudge, held after his children's murders were long since dead, nearly destroyed his clan. Merrill's eluvian, rather than restoring the past or saving her people as she hoped, effectively destroyed a Clan and contributed nothing remarkable. The ruins of the Dales vindicated not the Dalish narrative, but the Human history of Red Crossing as an unprovoked start to the Dales-Orlais War that led to the fall of the Dales. And then the whole revelation of the Ancient Elves, who rejected major Dalish narratives.

 

Short of a tool that would destroy the distinction of races (such as a genocidal weapon), there's nothing in ancient elven history that will fix the past. Humans were dicks- turns out elves were dicks to. Exploring more into how the romanticized past wasn't so romantic won't change that.

 

How will they move forward with so little they know? For the elves to have a reliable and stable future, they have to learn and put to use what was forgotten. They tell stories of their gods, but how much of them is true, and missing the complete picture? Without information like that, they will only build upon lies and misinformation. They will have to reexamine some of their beliefs and adapt it to their lifestyle. But for them to do that reliably, we have to know more than we have learned in this game, because there are still parts of the lore that doesn't make sense. So, the past is still important, no matter how distasteful it may be.

 

Also we don't know what Merril's mirror may do yet. If you were her friend, she doesn't destroy it after the events with her clan. As we have learned, eluvians are valuable for some key reason we don't understand fully. Restoring it cost a terrible price, but it may yet play a role.

[Colonelkillabee]

The elves however are responsible for the attack on Red Crossing. That's why an apology, of a sort, was attempted toward the town.

Ringadingding, baby.

[Steelcan]

Also we don't know what Merril's mirror may do yet. If you were her friend, she doesn't destroy it after the events with her clan. As we have learned, eluvians are valuable for some key reason we don't understand fully. Restoring it cost a terrible price, but it may yet play a role.

Yep, we totally need magical artifacts, spewing the taint, set up in civilian areas, that were reconstructed with the advice of a pride demon.

 

absolutely no ill can come of this whatsoever

[Addai]

I'm not going to get into a long debate here, but just going to put my opinion in as simple as possible, and as always, people can agree or disagree.
 
For me personally, it does not matter what the tensions were, the history, etc etc. If this was a court case, they wouldn't say "Well tensions were high, so the man who murdered was no more to blame than the victim". No, they'd convict the man that murdered and punish him.

Er... that happens all the time, with differentiations between first degree, third degree murder and manslaughter.
 

That's how I see this. It doesn't matter what the history was, the history is indirect. The actual spark is what really matters.

No, it really doesn't, because when you have a situation like that, the spark is almost irrelevant. If it hadn't been one thing, it would have been another.

Granted, both sides are at fault for stacking kindling.
 

There's a reason that the elven fans at most can say "We're both to blame" instead of "the humans are to blame". They're the ones with most to gain from that compromise, and it is an excuse.

As I bring up ad nauseum in threads like these, even back in Origins the Dalish storyteller will say that elves participated in their own downfall. But people wanting to use Red Crossing to justify centuries of human oppression are even more ridiculous than what you're claiming we're doing.

[Steelcan]

Even if we decide that the attack on Red Crossing was justified, because some civilians attacked knights, what's the reasoning that the subsequent invasion of Orlais, sack of cities like Montismmard and attacking Val Royeaux itself, was justified?

[Colonelkillabee]

Er... that happens all the time, with differentiations between first degree, third degree murder and manslaughter.
 No, it really doesn't, because when you have a situation like that, the spark is almost irrelevant.

Granted, both sides are at fault for stacking kindling.

As I bring up ad nauseum in threads like these, even back in Origins the Dalish storyteller will say that elves participated in their own downfall. But people wanting to use Red Crossing to justify centuries of human oppression are even more ridiculous than what you're claiming we're doing.

Er, first degree third degree and manslaughter is still a conviction. Hence why I said "Intentional or not" several times. Not trying to be rude, but like I said, it really doesn't matter what the intentions were. You can be at fault for something without malicious intent.

 

You assume, but that certainly wouldn't fly in court. It wasn't one thing or another, but this. All we can work with is what we know happened.

 

I can't speak for those using this to justify anything (though justify is a funny word sometimes, and doesn't always mean what it does to another), but the elves are guilty for red crossing, first degree, third degree, or manslaughter, doesn't matter. Especially after the retaliation on red crossing afterwards.

 

If all you're up in arms about is if the elves deserve what they got today because of this, then that's what needs to be focused on, not if redcrossing was the ancient elves' fault. Because that answer is yes.

[Ahalvern]

Yep, we totally need magical artifacts, spewing the taint, set up in civilian areas, that were reconstructed with the advice of a pride demon.

 

absolutely no ill can come of this whatsoever

 

Until it does cause such trouble I'm content with a magical artifact from the past being restored and sitting on a Plot Bench to be used when it's required.

 

Well-said! Have a cookie. ^^

 

Om nom nom. Thanks!

[Steelcan]

You mean a group of armed humans murdering an elf who wasn't directly responsible for the accidental killing of his human lover, and apparently trying to kill the Emerald Knights in revenge.

 

I don't see why the humans are being absolved for all wrongdoing. No one excuses the accidental murder of the human woman, but no one forced that group of humans to murder her elven lover, or try to attack the Emerald Knights. No one excuses the actions of the elves, but both sides were wrong. Even the Dalish can admit that both sides played a role in the inception of the war and were wrong, and extend an olive branch to the current inhabitants of Red Crossing as a gesture of peace.

How about this

 

Yes, the humans were wrong to kill the elf, but its mediated by the fact that a town on Orlesian soil was attacked by elves, said civilans were butchered because they were civilians fighting the elite elven knightly order, and that the elves then continued their attack on into the rest of Orlais.

 

If an unruly mob was slaughtered by the armed forces of a separate nation, what do you think the approporiate reaction would be?  Also that same nation is now attacking your lands, burning your cities, and marching on your Holy SItes

[Steelcan]

Until it does cause such trouble I'm content with a magical artifact from the past being restored and sitting on a Plot Bench to be used when it's required.

How about when it killed somebody?  Is that not proof enough of it being a bad idea?

[umadcommander]

Until it does cause such trouble I'm content with a magical artifact from the past being restored and sitting on a Plot Bench to be used when it's required.

 

 

plot = trouble in the world

 

a portal spewing out taint is not going to be a positive flag im afraid

[Ahalvern]

How about when it killed somebody?  Is that not proof enough of it being a bad idea?

 

The reassembling of it killed people. Its use may not. We will see.

[Steelcan]

The reassembling of it killed people. Its use may not. We will see.

"This mirror killed someone when I tried to fix it, better keep going and ask my pride demon friend to help me!"

[Colonelkillabee]

I think a big problem here is also that people are mixing morality with cause.

[LobselVith8]

A group of villagers with whatever weapons, or what might in a pinch pass for a weapon, that they can scrounge up do not compare to armed and trained soldiers.

 

And yet, that group of humans managed to kill the fallen human's elven lover, who was formerly an Emerald Knight.

 

The humans are not being absolved. They (humans in general not the villagers) are responsible for the death of an unarmed elf, and probably numerous other events leading up to the then current events. However they did not murder him. They were alerted to an apparent attack to their town (think the horn-call of Buckland "Awake! Fear! Fire! Foes! Awake!"). And killed him assuming he was a hostile group attacking their town and responsible for the dead woman. Were they wrong to kill him? Obviously yes, but it must have been an easy mistake to make.

 

The group of humans is being absolved by people like you, who decide to vilify the elves despite humans and elves both committing wrongdoing during this incident. You are basically excusing them for committing murder, and trying to kill an entire group of elves for the accidental killing of one human by one member of the elven group.

 

The elves however are responsible for the attack on Red Crossing. That's why an apology, of a sort, was attempted toward the town. The shared role you keep bringing up, seemed to me to refer to both nations being responsible for antagonising each other leading up to the war. Rather than the elves being the victims.

 

Keeper Hawen's clan says they discovered that humans and elves were both responsible for the inception of the war, and decide to extend a peace offering to the town of Red Crossing - a halla, one of the most sacred animals of the People (one they believe guide the dead into the afterlife).

 

You're ignoring what's explicitly stated when the Inquisitor gives the scroll to the Dalish - which is that both sides were wrong.

[Steelcan]

Damn they got a deer out of it

 

totally makes up for the invasion

[Ahalvern]

"This mirror killed someone when I tried to fix it, better keep going and ask my pride friend demon to help me!"

 

Ugh I'm not saying right now. In a future game or DLC there may be a way to put it to use. I'm guessing Merrill not instantly contracting the blight and becoming a ghoul by touching it says something. Either case, it's just a wild guess. It may be relevant, or it may not be.

[Rifneno]

[15:33:51] Rifneno : I still say the best thing to do is to find out from the wardens where the last 2 old gods are buried. Then, flip a coin. Give the knife-ears land over one of them, say nothing. Lulz in a box. When ol' snappy wakes up, remind them how they wouldn't come to humans' aid during a blight. Laugh. Roast marshmallows over burning elves.
[15:36:23] Steelcan : you should post that
[15:36:28] Steelcan : http://forum.bioware...o-wrong/page-12

So it is, and so it shall be.

[Steelcan]

And yet, that group of humans managed to kill the fallen human's elven lover, who was formerly an Emerald Knight.

 

 

The group of humans is being absolved by people like you, who decide to vilify the elves despite humans and elves both committing wrongdoing during this incident. You are basically excusing them for committing murder, and trying to kill an entire group of elves for the accidental killing of one human by one member of the elven group.

 

 

Keeper Hawen's clan says they discovered that humans and elves were both responsible for the inception of the war, and decide to extend a peace offering to the town of Red Crossing - a halla, one of the most sacred animals of the People (one they believe guide the dead into the afterlife).

 

You're ignoring what's explicitly stated when the Inquisitor gives the scroll to the Dalish - which is that both sides were wrong.

They killed a single elf, one mob against a former knight isn't a fair fight, and neither is said mob against an armed band

 

 

They are not absolved of the murder.  They are absolved of thinking the elves were hostile and trying to defend their lands, then being killed for their troubles, and then their homeland was invaded.

 

 

Both parties are responsible for the build up to the war, no doubt about that.  But the war was officially decalred when Red Crossing was attacked by armed elves and the invasion then followed through.  That part is not ambiguous, and it is not a shared responsibility.  When Charlemagne marched into Saxony to destroy what he saw as a hostile, heathen nation to his north we do not say both sides started it.  The Saxons may have inflamed tensions with raiding, but they did not start the war with it, the war started when Charlemagne entered their lands and started torching them

[Nightdragon8]

You mean a group of armed humans murdering an elf who wasn't directly responsible for the accidental killing of his human lover, and apparently trying to kill the Emerald Knights in revenge.

 

I don't see why the humans are being absolved for all wrongdoing. No one excuses the accidental murder of the human woman, but no one forced that group of humans to murder her elven lover, or try to attack the Emerald Knights. No one excuses the actions of the elves, but both sides were wrong. Even the Dalish can admit that both sides played a role in the inception of the war and were wrong, and extend an olive branch to the current inhabitants of Red Crossing as a gesture of peace.

oh now its the 'accidental' killing of a lover... from what was told it was clearly on propose,

 

anyone with a lick of sense would understand the situation got out of control, it started off with 2 people falling in love, one elf one human, The other Elves, saw the elf leaving the culture, thought it was going to give up secerts so they killed them. Which upset the locals as 'an elf' killed a human for no good reason. Which promted to kill the elf in the same manner. Then which started out into an open conflct. So in reality its BOTH THERE FUALTS. More than 1 person can be the blame of a death or incedent.

 

Maybe the humans over reacted, but SO DID THE ELVES. stop trying to say its 1 sides fualt over anther. And if I where to put the blame on 1 side, It would be the Elves, because they are the ones who killed someone first. They shot the first shot

[Steelcan]

oh now its the 'accidental' killing of a lover... from what was told it was clearly on propose,

 

anyone with a lick of sense would understand the situation got out of control, it started off with 2 people falling in love, one elf one human, The other Elves, saw the elf leaving the culture, thought it was going to give up secerts so they killed them. Which upset the locals as 'an elf' killed a human for no good reason. Which promted to kill the elf in the same manner. Then which started out into an open conflct. So in reality its BOTH THERE FUALTS. More than 1 person can be the blame of a death or incedent.

 

Maybe the humans over reacted, but SO DID THE ELVES. stop trying to say its 1 sides fualt over anther. And if I where to put the blame on 1 side, It would be the Elves, because they are the ones who killed someone first. They shot the first shot

no, the fault of the war is the elves, because they chose to escalate the conflict into an all out invasion

[LobselVith8]

Ugh I'm not saying right now. In a future game or DLC there may be a way to put it to use. I'm guessing Merrill not instantly contracting the blight and becoming a ghoul by touching it says something. Either case, it's just a wild guess. It may be relevant, or it may not be.

 

Technically, Merrill was building the Eluvian from lore she gathered and studied, and information she extrapolated from the shard. She only learned blood magic from Audacity because she lacked the necessary lyrium to cleanse the shard of the taint with ordinary magic. Given that the shard was cleansed (which is why she isn't a ghoul like the elves in 'Witch Hunt'), her efforts to cleanse the shard clearly worked.

 

Furthermore, the entire story in 'The Masked Empire' makes it clear that the Eluvians could benefit the Elvhen, which means Merrill was correct in thinking that they could potentially and irrevocably change the lives of the People for the better.