1602 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

These things aren't factors of culture but of wealth- sustained, concentrated wealth. It is a part of culture to accumulate wealth and put it towards technological advancement, of course, but generally that's a mercenary kind of society. Empires like the Romans and the Anglo-American power bloc have built their societies on the backs and blood of many, many people. So if you're willing to exploit, sure you can get ahead and create a utopian society. Otherwise you're just going to be out of luck.

 

Not necessarily. 

 

Sure, there are more examples in real life of great marvels of tech and engineering being built on the backs of others and through their blood, but in real life we put a man on the moon without slavery, exploitation (unless you want to argue taxes, lol) or sacrificing the welfare of others to build up a huge achievement. 

 

It's just a lot easier to look at life as a pie, someone gets a larger slice so someone must get a smaller slice, sort of deal since there is so much history that is built on taking from others to build yourself up, and that is how many soldiers in medieval times up to 19th century were able to come into money, by looting in conquests. 

 

But you are right about the utopian society. Nice thing about the word "utopia" is that it actually means "no-place," and the novel that discussed utopia as this perfect place had that word specifically chosen because it cannot exist. Human nature will get in the way. 

[dragonflight288]

But she isn't, and Varric isn't. They're the future of the dwarves.

 

Except if they get seen together assassins get sent after him and if he tells the full story of Bianca (the crossbow) things'll get really ugly with the carta, so in actuality circumstances keep them from advancing anything. 

 

Now, Dagna and Sandal are the true future of the dwarves! 

[Red of Rivia]

I'm actually amenable to something like this

 

You'd think someone like Tevinter would jump at the chance to get some Foederati

With no organization they are destiny to failure, is much easier to choke a lift without a ideal than one founded on rock.

[dragonflight288]

What is rational or irrational does not depend on how you view it. That's the wonder of the Enlightenment, that it doesn't matter who says what.

 

Not necessarily. Culture changes all the time in subtle ways, often over a short period of time. 

 

20 years ago, the idea of texting someone as part of a cultural norm was so far from considered possible that it couldn't be conceived. And when texting came into play it developed its own language naturally as people naturally evolved their linguistics to make writing messages shorter. Lol, brb, ttyl, and so on mean nothing without the cultural linguistic context that comes new inventions and many people simply adapting to it. 

 

And it doesn't even need to be new inventions. Language itself changes as slang becomes more and more commonplace. 30 years ago, being 'gay' was "to be merry or happy" and using it as a way to refer to homosexuals was almost insulting. But it became so widespread that it stopped being a negative connotation and became accepted as the actual word, and language and culture evolved as people became more exposed and the word received more use, and now when you say you are gay, almost no one will think that you actually mean you are happy. 

 

Culture in Thedas has a very, very long road to go before elves will ever be accepted by humans as equals. In many ways they are seen by the majority of humans as sub-human and barely qualify as people. There's a guy in Skyhold who talks to a dwarf and says he's happy that he's not working with one of them, and the dwarf goes "Mage, templar?" And the guy is "no, them!" and the dwarf goes on "Qunari, assassins, merchants, nobles?" Then the guy goes "elves you nitwit, can't trust them!" and the dwarf goes "Huh, sucks to have your opinion." Then the guy goes "You can't trust elves," and the dwarf goes "History says it's humans who can't be trusted," and the guy goes "what would you know about it dwarf!" and he goes "yes, because I'm a dwarf and eat mushrooms and fear the sky, I can't know about history."

 

It's a good conversation, and quite enlightening on how people can see entire groups of people and let their own prejudices blind them. 

[Dorrieb]

Actually, although the Enlightenment led to many lasting breakthroughs in the natural sciences, applying the same positivist criteria to anthropology (which as a social science tends to be highly subjective and interpretive) is problematic, and many of the ideas of the Enlightenment relating to human cultures were rooted in colonial ideology. For example, French thought at the time was that their society was the epitome of progress while the societies they colonised were at an earlier societal level and needed to be forcibly 'evolved'. But the philosophy underpinning such ideas has always been shoddy, because when it comes to subjective experience and meaning (which is an enormous part of human culture), it's impossible to apply objective criteria to it in the same way we can objectively define things in the natural sciences. For example, your own 'objective' means of deciding whether a cultural behaviour is 'rational' or not seems to rest on whether or not it has a purpose for human survival. This is problematic for a couple of reasons:

 

1). You assume that there is a completely objective means of defining what is good for human survival: some communities might find certain rituals and beliefs as key in maintaining their own well-being and societal cohesion. While you might view a particular behaviour as backward and pointless as an outside observer, the emic perspective might be that such traditions are needed. While you might perceive your own view as being objectively true, on closer inspection you may realise that it in fact is highly subjective and dependent on a number of interpretive criteria that are themselves prioritised over other criteria on subjective grounds.

 

2). Even if from an emic perspective a certain tradition is not necessary for survival, this does not automatically rubbish that idea if it brings meaning and enjoyment to an individual or community. People don't necessarily 'need' tattoos or books or art to survive, but each one brings them a level of enjoyment. Not everyone might get the same level of enjoyment from these things, many might not enjoy them at all (or view them as repulsive), but the fact that such things are not vital to everyone's survival from a purely functional perspective does not make them irrelevant.

 

So in short, what is and isn't 'rational' is very much dependent on the subject when it comes to evaluating many facets of cultural practice. Your own views are not necessarily wrong, but it's dubious to think that they represent an objective means of picking and choosing how everyone should live.

 

Of course I see the potential for bias when judging another culture as an outsider. But how about applying rational criteria to the traditions of one's own culture from the inside? To follow your own example, if the French had applied the same criteria to themselves as they did to other cultures, they would have found that they too were savages by their own definition and needed to be civilised (something that was pointed out by Mark Twain in a famous article, by the way). The failure is not in applying rational criteria to social practices, it is in applying them selectively.

 

1) If a community's social cohesion depends on shared rituals and beliefs it is only because they believe it to be so. It limits their choices as individuals, as they are not free to decide for themselves whether they agree with these beliefs or not: they must either go along with them, or cease to belong to the community. As a consequence, change is discouraged, if not impossible. The community cannot evolve, and their best individuals leave it as they grow out of its limitations. I realise that you're thinking in the abstract, but you do realise that you've just defended female genital mutilation, for example?

 

2) It's great to enjoy books, art, and tattoos. It would not be so great to be forced to bear tattoos, or enjoy a specific book, or approve of a specific style of art -- or else be considered an outcast among your people. This is what the Dalish do, and to a lesser extent the more conservative city elves, as Sera quite rightly points out ('You're not a proper elf if you don't do this and that, etc.!'). That is the difference: whether you're free to enjoy these things within your community or you have to enjoy them to be a part of your community.

 

So in short, what is rational remains very much a matter of what is rational, regardless of what many people historically have claimed was rational, but wasn't.

[Addai]

Well let's think about that definition. How do traditions get started then? There must have been a time when they weren't traditional. They were things that the ancestors did for an actual practical purpose. Say, for example, that they burned their clothes at the end of every month, because they were lice-ridden. Over time, through repetition, it becomes a custom, passed down the generations, so we still burn our clothes at the end of every month even though the lice problem is long taken care of. In fact, we don't even remember that it had anything to do with lice at all. We don't even know why we do it, except we've been taught to do it and we've always done it. It's a tradition. It's also appallingly stupid. If your great-great-great-etc-grandma came back and saw you do it, she'd say, 'Why the hell are you burning up a perfectly lice-free set of clothes? What are you, nuts? We only did it because we didn't have soap in those days!'
 
It serves no purpose, it's wasteful, and you don't know how it got started in the first place? Then leave it. Binding up your sense of identity in meaningless ritual is pathological, for individuals and societies.

This is a patronizing view of most actual traditions, which are still steeped in history. And those traditions also acquire meaning because they allow people to coalesce around them and identify with them. People need this. It's why the loss of symbolism and a sense of one's history is so acute in modern life that people are radicalizing in order to find it. That's what happened to the Dalish, too, but the abuse of something doesn't mean you toss out the entire concept. When I look at history, one of the saddest things I see is the erasure of people and language groups not physically, but culturally. Whole cultures simply melted away, were absorbed by others and are barely remembered. That's tragic.
 

What is rational or irrational does not depend on how you view it. That's the wonder of the Enlightenment, that it doesn't matter who says what.

Well we're in postmodernism now so I'm free not to adopt your subjective view of what is rational and what isn't.
 

Not necessarily.

Sure, there are more examples in real life of great marvels of tech and engineering being built on the backs of others and through their blood, but in real life we put a man on the moon without slavery, exploitation (unless you want to argue taxes, lol) or sacrificing the welfare of others to build up a huge achievement.

Er... no, we didn't. I won't go into it except to say that the nations that put people on the moon got to that point because of the blood of many, many slaves and near-slaves.

[dragonflight288]

 

 

Well we're in postmodernism now so I'm free not to adopt your subjective view of what is rational and what isn't. 

 

If you think about it, post-modernism isn't really that modern. It's believing in abstract principles that can be misinterpreted and reinterpreted and still be perfectly valid because it really isn't about what is concrete and real but what we perceive it as. 

 

It's like we regressed to Plato's philosophy with his allegory of the cave and the most abstract is also the most real. 

[Bad King]

Of course I see the potential for bias when judging another culture as an outsider. But how about applying rational criteria to the traditions of one's own culture from the inside? To follow your own example, if the French had applied the same criteria to themselves as they did to other cultures, they would have found that they too were savages by their own definition and needed to be civilised (something that was pointed out by Mark Twain in a famous article, by the way). The failure is not in applying rational criteria to social practices, it is in applying them selectively.

 

1) If a community's social cohesion depends on shared rituals and beliefs it is only because they believe it to be so. It limits their choices as individuals, as they are not free to decide for themselves whether they agree with these beliefs or not: they must either go along with them, or cease to belong to the community. As a consequence, change is discouraged, if not impossible. The community cannot evolve, and their best individuals leave it as they grow out of its limitations. I realise that you're thinking in the abstract, but you do realise that you've just defended female genital mutilation, for example?

 

2) It's great to enjoy books, art, and tattoos. It would not be so great to be forced to bear tattoos, or enjoy a specific book, or approve of a specific style of art -- or else be considered an outcast among your people. This is what the Dalish do, and to a lesser extent the more conservative city elves, as Sera quite rightly points out ('You're not a proper elf if you don't do this and that, etc.!'). That is the difference: whether you're free to enjoy these things within your community or you have to enjoy them to be a part of your community.

 

So in short, what is rational remains very much a matter of what is rational, regardless of what many people historically have claimed was rational, but wasn't.

 

The problem with judging ones own culture from the inside is that our criticisms of it inevitably derive from our own experiences of it rather than from a distinct black boxed idea of what is right and what is wrong. Accusations against certain beliefs held within one's own society emanate from beliefs held within one's own society. 

 

1). Ritual practices do not necessarily limit choice; they help create the very basis for how choices are made. Inevitably, some individuals may feel alienated by a particular belief that is perpetuated by their own society (and that alienation derived from their own interpretations of such beliefs), but others might gladly take part in such rituals as they offer them a sense of belonging and identity. When such ritual practices are enacted, they are constantly being reinterpreted by the individuals/age groups/classes etc. performing them and thus are constantly in flux. If we take the Dalish for instance, their society is very different to those of their predecessors, and as Solas notes, every tribe is different because every tribe consists of different individuals that have reinterpreted their people's rituals and customs as their webs of interactions and practice differ across time and space. The problem with your argument here is that you view traditions as highly static when in fact they are dynamic as different individuals and groups interpret and practice them differently. The 'best individuals' that you mention may not necessarily leave a cultural system if they happen not to agree with aspects of it; they might also change the system from within. The accusations that you make against traditions are inescapable: there will always be individuals dissatisfied with the cultural system that they exist within and yet this isn't always something that demands remedying. Genital mutilation for instance has not always existed: it has to have been a cultural practice introduced by individuals dissatisfied with the existing traditions of their society. In societies in which genital mutilation is banned in order to protect individuals from harm, there may be some individuals dissatisfied with the fact that they have to go through with the new order or cease to belong to the community - that doesn't mean that they're objectively 'right'.

 

2). Every community if 'forced' to accept a series of beliefs: all societies perpetuate moral codes and have rituals that encourage them. It's simply the way things are and the way that we are constructed as individuals. You accuse the Dalish of alienating individuals by perpetuating certain belief systems while ignoring the fact that Sera is the product of a conflicting belief system that alienates those who wish to hold different views: Sera demonises Elven social practices as backward - the society she comes from equally restricts the way in which people live, and any society that you propose would also restrict human action via ritualised practices and beliefs grounded in subjectivity. Regardless, there are Dalish individuals in the games who express a desire to learn from city elves and humans, so it's unfair to generalise them as being closed to external influences.

 

Edit: that'll be my last post for a while as I'm now going to retire to bed. It has been an enjoyable discussion so far though from my own subjective perspective.

[Dorrieb]

This is a patronizing view of most actual traditions, which are still steeped in history. And those traditions also acquire meaning because they allow people to coalesce around them and identify with them. People need this. It's why the loss of symbolism and a sense of one's history is so acute in modern life that people are radicalizing in order to find it. That's what happened to the Dalish, too, but the abuse of something doesn't mean you toss out the entire concept. When I look at history, one of the saddest things I see is the erasure of people and language groups not physically, but culturally. Whole cultures simply melted away, were absorbed by others and are barely remembered. That's tragic.
 

 

I get what you're saying, and there is truth in that, but it's also not fair to expect others to live as living museums of times gone by, especially not while enjoying the advantages of modernity. It's also all too often used by their oppressors as an excuse. I know that indigenous tribes in my country want running water and electricity, while the authorities justify not giving it to them as ruining their 'traditions'. Well isn't that convenient! They're people, not museum exhibits. They want their children to go to school and live better lives than they have, not to be replacements for them. Instead they get rounded up by police and handed over to drug dealers to be murdered. I'm fairly cross about it, as a matter of fact. But that's a whole different rant.

[Red of Rivia]

I get what you're saying, and there is truth in that, but it's also not fair to expect others to live as living museums of times gone by, especially not while enjoying the advantages of modernity. It's also all too often used by their oppressors as an excuse. I know that indigenous tribes in my country want running water and electricity, while the authorities justify not giving it to them as ruining their 'traditions'. Well isn't that convenient! They're people, not museum exhibits. They want their children to go to school and live better lives than they have, not to be replacements for them. Instead they get rounded up by police and handed over to drug dealers to be murdered. I'm fairly cross about it, as a matter of fact. But that's a whole different rant.

Well, at least here the natives want to get away from the white man, they just want to live in peace in their reserves. So I do not know how far we can take this example forward.

[Steelcan]

Well, at least here the natives want to get away from the white man, they just want to live in peace in their reserves. So I do not know how far we can take this example forward.

Some Dalish are of a much more militant mindset than that

[dragonflight288]

I get what you're saying, and there is truth in that, but it's also not fair to expect others to live as living museums of times gone by, especially not while enjoying the advantages of modernity. It's also all too often used by their oppressors as an excuse. I know that indigenous tribes in my country want running water and electricity, while the authorities justify not giving it to them as ruining their 'traditions'. Well isn't that convenient! They're people, not museum exhibits. They want their children to go to school and live better lives than they have, not to be replacements for them. Instead they get rounded up by police and handed over to drug dealers to be murdered. I'm fairly cross about it, as a matter of fact. But that's a whole different rant.

 

There are also cases where they, as a society, refuse outside help or even things that will improve their lot in life despite it being freely offered because they dismiss it as "white" and not "them."

 

Well, at least here the natives want to get away from the white man, they just want to live in peace in their reserves. So I do not know how far we can take this example forward.

 

Not necessarily. I happen to know a few natives who were rejected by their own tribes because they went on to get college educations. I know a Navajo Indian in real life who is a skilled artist and designs video games for the military, and a member of the Omaha Sioux tribe who has a masters degree, and her own mother disowned her and calls her "an apple" meaning red on the outside but white on the inside, because she believes in self-determination, personal responsibility and got a college education. 

 

Literally, her mother feels like leaving the reservation to go to college and get a job is against everything that makes you truly a native. It's quite bizarre where someone will reject things that help improve your lives because of such a strong dependence on a way of life that isn't improving living quality at all. 

[Red of Rivia]

Some Dalish are of a much more militant mindset than that

The ''Indios'' here in maximum shoot arrows at helicopters, their life is very quiet, only happens problem when they invade their lands. No Violence, only protests.

 

There are also cases where they, as a society, refuse outside help or even things that will improve their lot in life despite it being freely offered because they dismiss it as "white" and not "them."

 

 

Not necessarily. I happen to know a few natives who were rejected by their own tribes because they went on to get college educations. I know a Navajo Indian in real life who is a skilled artist and designs video games for the military, and a member of the Omaha Sioux tribe who has a masters degree, and her own mother disowned her and calls her "an apple" meaning red on the outside but white on the inside, because she believes in self-determination, personal responsibility and got a college education. 

 

Literally, her mother feels like leaving the reservation to go to college and get a job is against everything that makes you truly a native. It's quite bizarre where someone will reject things that help improve your lives because of such a strong dependence on a way of life that isn't improving living quality at all. 

At least the Brazilians are very quiet about it. Nearby tribes often have to the Internet, the farther away has almost nothing in terms of technology, but still receive government support and can stay in their isolation and doubt know even what is outside the reserves. It largely depends on the native concerned, I'm not Brazilian , but I live in Brazil today and the aggressive history here is much lower than in other countries. ''Os Indios'' who want to have they document and everything has its right, just go in search of government. Of course, is difficult, very difficult to see an native here where I live, even more that I live in place colonized by Europeans and in a European quarter, Brazil is different from these other countries, the natives have their own lands, which are there in Amazonia, Acre and etc,they have reservations elsewhere. But as I said, the mentality is different, it depends on culture to culture I suppose.

[Dorrieb]

The problem with judging ones own culture from the inside is that our criticisms of it inevitably derive from our own experiences of it rather than from a distinct black boxed idea of what is right and what is wrong. Accusations against certain beliefs held within one's own society emanate from beliefs held within one's own society. 

 

1). Ritual practices do not necessarily limit choice; they help create the very basis for how choices are made. Inevitably, some individuals may feel alienated by a particular belief that is perpetuated by their own society (and that alienation derived from their own interpretations of such beliefs), but others might gladly take part in such rituals as they offer them a sense of belonging and identity. When such ritual practices are enacted, they are constantly being reinterpreted by the individuals/age groups/classes etc. performing them and thus are constantly in flux. If we take the Dalish for instance, their society is very different to those of their predecessors, and as Solas notes, every tribe is different because every tribe consists of different individuals that have reinterpreted their people's rituals and customs as their webs of interactions and practice differ across time and space. The problem with your argument here is that you view traditions as highly static when in fact they are dynamic as different individuals and groups interpret and practice them differently. The 'best individuals' that you mention may not necessarily leave a cultural system if they happen not to agree with aspects of it; they might also change the system from within. The accusations that you make against traditions are inescapable: there will always be individuals dissatisfied with the cultural system that they exist within and yet this isn't always something that demands remedying. Genital mutilation for instance has not always existed: it has to have been a cultural practice introduced by individuals dissatisfied with the existing traditions of their society. In societies in which genital mutilation is banned in order to protect individuals from harm, there may be some individuals dissatisfied with the fact that they have to go through with the new order or cease to belong to the community - that doesn't mean that they're objectively 'right'.

 

2). Every community if 'forced' to accept a series of beliefs: all societies perpetuate moral codes and have rituals that encourage them. It's simply the way things are and the way that we are constructed as individuals. You accuse the Dalish of alienating individuals by perpetuating certain belief systems while ignoring the fact that Sera is the product of a conflicting belief system that alienates those who wish to hold different views: Sera demonises Elven social practices as backward - the society she comes from equally restricts the way in which people live, and any society that you propose would also restrict human action via ritualised practices and beliefs grounded in subjectivity. Regardless, there are Dalish individuals in the games who express a desire to learn from city elves and humans, so it's unfair to generalise them as being closed to external influences.

 

Edit: that'll be my last post for a while as I'm now going to retire to bed. It has been an enjoyable discussion so far though from my own subjective perspective.

 

Ha! I see what you did there.

 

You're descending into sophisms. Forced clitorectomies are objectively wrong by any standard of humanity. In fact, it's an atrocity. It may be argued that it is a tradition, that it is a part of a cultural identity, that it provides social cohesion, etc.; it is still an atrocity and needs to be stopped. If a community's social cohesion really depends on it (which I don't believe) then the world is better off without it. Let it be disbanded and forgotten and stop mutilating babies.

 

That's a bit of an extreme example though. But saying that it is 'simply the way things are' ignores the fact that it isn't how things have to be. We can embrace change, grow, and evolve.

 

And Sera does not strike me as a particularly compliant member of society. She's somewhat rebellious.

 

Good night, and see you tomorrow, maybe.

[Dorrieb]

Not necessarily. I happen to know a few natives who were rejected by their own tribes because they went on to get college educations. I know a Navajo Indian in real life who is a skilled artist and designs video games for the military, and a member of the Omaha Sioux tribe who has a masters degree, and her own mother disowned her and calls her "an apple" meaning red on the outside but white on the inside, because she believes in self-determination, personal responsibility and got a college education. 

 

Literally, her mother feels like leaving the reservation to go to college and get a job is against everything that makes you truly a native. It's quite bizarre where someone will reject things that help improve your lives because of such a strong dependence on a way of life that isn't improving living quality at all. 

 

Well there you go. That's a perfect example.

[Eliastion]

(...)
You're descending into sophisms. Forced clitorectomies are objectively wrong by any standard of humanity. In fact, it's an atrocity.(...)

Ok, sorry, but what you're saying now is really stupid. They are practiced in certain cultures which by definition makes the claim of them being "objectively wrong by any standard of humanity" false. They're definitely wrong by OUR standards. And in fact "by standard" precludes "objectively" - if there are different standards, thing can't really be objective, now can it?

There are certain elements common to most if not all moral codes, those would be the basic rules that allow society to function. We can, for example, reasonably expect any and all cultures to prohibit murder, as in: killing someone without justified reason. The problem is that "someone" as well as "justified reason" are both culture-specific. A slave might not be a person - or it could be one. An unborn baby might be or be not. The fact that someone slept with somebody else's wife could be a justified reason to kill him, her, both or neither - all depending on the culture.
And obviously adhering to key points of moral code practiced in certain society is a requirement for really being part of it. You can try and hide your immoral (by standards of this particular society) behavior but you're still a pathological member of community until you're found out and an outcast or criminal afterwards.

[Addai]

Not necessarily. I happen to know a few natives who were rejected by their own tribes because they went on to get college educations. I know a Navajo Indian in real life who is a skilled artist and designs video games for the military, and a member of the Omaha Sioux tribe who has a masters degree, and her own mother disowned her and calls her "an apple" meaning red on the outside but white on the inside, because she believes in self-determination, personal responsibility and got a college education. 

 

Literally, her mother feels like leaving the reservation to go to college and get a job is against everything that makes you truly a native. It's quite bizarre where someone will reject things that help improve your lives because of such a strong dependence on a way of life that isn't improving living quality at all. 

And not everyone considers modern life an improvement, despite conveniences. Obviously I'm not talking about basic sanitation and medicine, and it's no doubt difficult if one individual wants to pursue a different path. This discussion however is heavily inflected with the assumption that modernity is the be-all end-all and that we're all marching towards some vision of "progress" that is both inevitable and highly desirable, and that you have to swallow it whole or reject the entire thing.

[Elfyoth]

Some Dalish are of a much more militant mindset than that

Very extreme clans. 

 

And however I do not belive that the Dalish are based purely on Native Americans, I think they are based on jewish-idian combination, why you ask? Redemption, the jewish redemption, go read about it all if you dont know what I mean  

[Elfyoth]

Except if they get seen together assassins get sent after him and if he tells the full story of Bianca (the crossbow) things'll get really ugly with the carta, so in actuality circumstances keep them from advancing anything. 

 

Now, Dagna and Sandal are the true future of the dwarves! 

I do wonder where is Sandal, and what he is up to, and where is that never stop talking dwarf- Bohdan. 

Major spoilers if you dont want to know.... things if you havent finished the game. 

Spoiler

I dont now if you now it but Sandal might be an elven god, June I think you know like Solas and Flemeth

[Maria13]

Very extreme clans. 

 

And however I do not belive that the Dalish are based purely on Native Americans, I think they are based on jewish-idian combination, why you ask? Redemption, the jewish redemption, go read about it all if you dont know what I mean

 

You're forgetting Roma and travellers... Here in Europe...

 

Great discussion guys, and I have nothing really to contribute because I can see powerful arguments on both sides. Take the Roma in Spain they have given the world flamenco marvellous poetry and the pagentry of bullfighting on the other side... It is a horrible society in which to be a woman, honour killings, baby making, subjugation...

[Xilizhra]

And about Sera: sure, she has emotional issues, but she instinctively grasps some very remarkable concepts: She insists that 'people are people', i.e., she defines people by who they are, and not by which race they belong to. She also refuses to define herself as an 'elf' and rejects the weight of expectations that come with that, and she's right. If we are defined by our choices, being born an elf or a dwarf is not a choice, but an accident of birth. She has absolutely no patience with the notion of traditions that don't make people's lives better and in fact make them worse, and again, she's right. Have the Dalish made their lives any better by refusing to integrate? No. Wouldn't it be better to work toward a new human/elven society integrating the best of both?

The Dalish absolutely have made their lives better by refusing to integrate. They live longer and healthier lives than they would if they were stuck in the rotten bowels of human cities, and their mages aren't ripped away from them and locked in towers.

[Maria13]

You're forgetting Roma and travellers... Here in Europe...

 

Great discussion guys, and I have nothing really to contribute because I can see powerful arguments on both sides. Take the Roma in Spain they have given the world flamenco marvellous poetry and the pagentry of bullfighting on the other side... It is a horrible society in which to be a woman, honour killings, baby making, subjugation...

 

And today is the International day of the Romani or Roma people... http://en.wikipedia....i/Romani_people

 

Kudos to all of you, dudes!

 

Spoilered for size.

 

Spoiler

 

An araval?

 

[Steelcan]

The Dalish absolutely have made their lives better by refusing to integrate. They live longer and healthier lives than they would if they were stuck in the rotten bowels of human cities, and their mages aren't ripped away from them and locked in towers.

they're just killed if there's too many of them

[Xilizhra]

they're just killed if there's too many of them

We've never once seen any of them killed.

[Steelcan]

We've never once seen any of them killed.

an actual Dalish mage who was forced out of their clan into the Wilds with no real expectation of survival is our only source, damned first hand accounts being so unreliable....

 

 

You know its bad when your mages think the templars are a nice alternative