807 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Preparing for a fight if necessary or dressing up with the hope of avoiding one with a show of force is obviously not the same as showing up specifically intending to start a battle. It's seriously not even slightly hard to understand. You seem to be deliberately going out of your way to miss my point. 

Yes it is. Since you OBIVOSULY don't udnerstand what a hassle it is to get into combat equipment, and out of it. You DO NOT get in it, unless you are expecting a fight. The Elves went in, fully expecting a fight. That is the long and short of it.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

 

Are we truly discussing whether a unilateral armed incursion into neighboring sovereign territory with the intent to forcibly deny an un-coerced emmigrant the rights to freedom of religion, association, and stupid-sexy human loving, and doing so with enough power to conduct a massacre if he refuses any efforts at diplomacy...

 

...are we truly discussing whether this group should be held responsible for conducting a massacre after politely murdering the first human who approached them, and then pardon the subsequent massacre as 'an accident' or 'self-defense' or something other than total culpability and responsibility for the consequence of their actions?

 

I don't know where all of you live, but where I come from someone who deliberately attempts to do something wrong (such as, say, attempting kidnapping), is absolutely considered responsible if the situation spirals out of control and becomes something worse even if they didn't intend it (such as, mass murder). The fact that they only intended to kidnap a man out of xenophobic racism and a confused blood grievance wouldn't make the subsequent murder and massacre any less their fault.

[Eliastion]

The problem with that interpretation is that the residents of Red Crossing would have noticed that they were never massacred, even if no one else did. The town still exists, presumably not with descendants of it’s original residents, but if there were survivors I think that the truth would have gotten out. The people would have their own records. Their grandbabies would wonder how it was that grandma lived in Red Crossing her whole life when she was born in 2:02 and so on.

Not necessarily. Regardless of what happened to Red Crossing before the actual armies entered the stage, it seems that there was:
1. A human army that marched on Dales (for some reason RC incident is considered as one prompting the human attack so I'll assume here that humans sent their armies first)
2. Human army retreating (and retreating armies don't like to leave supplies behind) followed by an elven army marching with the counter-offensive
3. Retreating elven counter-offensive (again, retreating army and a settlement that can have some supplies to plunder/deny the enemy) followed by the human counter-counteroffensive
Basically, that likely was one unlucky town that got plenty of "opportunity" to be plundered, burned down, its inhabitants conscripted, killed or scattered. We're talking about ten years of war that consumed the area. Even if the city town it's people were completely untouched before the war, they sure as hell wouldn't be when the whole mess ended. What would remain would quite realistically be scattered survivors overwhelmed by cruelty of war. Not exactly the kind of people who would feel a burning need to correct anyone speaking of a massacre that started it all.
 

You are correct that the villagers weren’t explicitly killed. But it is very much implied. The only realistic alternate explanation is that the knights let them run away, giving them the opportunity to properly arm themselves and get reinforcements, then waited by the bodies of the fallen/incapacitated until more humans arrived. In that scenario the elves are acting beyond stupid. Now, I am not entirely adverse to that interpretation, but it’s one that most people who defend the elves usually frown on.

And here I must disagree, not because I don't think some people died there, but because I don't think NOT killing them would be such a "beyond stupid" move.
The elves didn't intend to attack the village - especially not at that point, where they just realized they shot a girl with flowers. When more humans came, they retreated. Basically, they could chase off that bunch of people who attacked them first and not really worry about them too much - it doesn't matter if the initial attackers are alive (and better armed) if you don't intend to fight them.

Killing the attackers would be necessary only if the elves were actually planning to follow-up and attack the town. And I don't think they were (oops, we killed a human armed with flower. Ok, guys, let's slaughter the rest of them while we're at this).

 

 

Oh, and one more thing (no quotation here since I'm lazy): elves likely considered that they would have to fight, but that doesn't necessarily mean they wanted it (ok, most of them, we don't know what really was going on in Siona's head...); and I think they could've avoided it. Imagine if a bunch of armed elves appear at the gates of the town and they demand to speak to Elandrin. Would human first reaction be to attack? And wouldn't Elandrin come out on its own? I think the fight was perfectly avoidable at that point.

Especially since - when we think about crossing the border, we apply our standards and it doesn't necessarily have to be so. Borders tend to be quite fluid and blurrry even in modern-day Thedas. Then it was likely more like "so, this here is a human settlement, so it would be Orlais". That forest where Siona's sister got killed likely wasn't on either side of the border - it WAS the border. While a bunch of soldiers from a neighboring country approaching a settlement would count as an invasion in our perspective, the same situation in Thedas, especially Thedas of the day, would be a bit more ambiguous. Not that it couldn't prompt a violent response, but it didn't absolutely have too.

Of course, regardless of all that whatiffery, when dead bodies started to pop up, any possibility of peaceful resolution shrugged and went to nearest tavern to drink itself under the table.

[Eliastion]

(...)

I don't know where all of you live, but where I come from someone who deliberately attempts to do something wrong (such as, say, attempting kidnapping), is absolutely considered responsible if the situation spirals out of control and becomes something worse even if they didn't intend it (such as, mass murder). The fact that they only intended to kidnap a man out of xenophobic racism and a confused blood grievance wouldn't make the subsequent murder and massacre any less their fault.

Well, the thing is that they didn't live where we live. And, while claims of armed incursion and the rest might be appropriate, you twisted facts a litt... a lot where it comes to what the elves were trying to do. They were not trying to kidnap a random elf emigrant. They tried to capture a deserter in possession of sensitive information.

Obviously, any villagers they killed after the girl were also their responsibility. Also obviously, the responsibility would be heavier if these villagers didn't attack them. It's stupid if anyone denies the first part. Equally stupid if anyone denies the second. I mean, you actually claim that a deliberate massacre is equal to killing a mob that tried to lynch you? Sure, if you actually did the thing they were trying to kill you for, you're responsible for the situation as a whole. But that still doesn't erase the distinction. Especially if you try and bring our-world modern standards into this. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

 

Are we truly discussing whether a unilateral armed incursion into neighboring sovereign territory with the intent to forcibly deny an un-coerced emmigrant the rights to freedom of religion, association, and stupid-sexy human loving, and doing so with enough power to conduct a massacre if he refuses any efforts at diplomacy...

 

...are we truly discussing whether this group should be held responsible for conducting a massacre after politely murdering the first human who approached them, and then pardon the subsequent massacre as 'an accident' or 'self-defense' or something other than total culpability and responsibility for the consequence of their actions?

 

I don't know where all of you live, but where I come from someone who deliberately attempts to do something wrong (such as, say, attempting kidnapping), is absolutely considered responsible if the situation spirals out of control and becomes something worse even if they didn't intend it (such as, mass murder). The fact that they only intended to kidnap a man out of xenophobic racism and a confused blood grievance wouldn't make the subsequent murder and massacre any less their fault.

People do go to great lengths to whitewash the Dalish.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Is weird to me that the elves slaughter of a human town is somehow fine to some elf fans but Orlais retaliating over it is condemned by the same people, going into a different countries territory & killing its civilians is still a bad thing no matter how it started, made worse by the Dales starting their invasion afterwards

[TheJediSaint]

Is weird to me that the elves slaughter of a human town is somehow fine to some elf fans but Orlais retaliating over it is condemned by the same people, going into a different countries territory & killing its civilians is still a bad thing no matter how it started, made worse by the Dales starting their invasion afterwards

Well, the humans did strike first when one of their sexy, sexy Chantry Sisters tempted one of their Emerald Knights away from the path of virtue.

[dragonflight288]

People do go to great lengths to whitewash the Dalish.

People also go to great lengths to give the Dalish ALL the blame. Especially if it helps Orlais or humans in general avoid responsibility or blame for their own actions, like killing Siona's sister.

@ Elastion, just caught up and one thing you said I wanted to respond to, when talking about Ferelden and press-gangs in regards to the military.

That actually did happen in Origins if you listen to the rumors and gossipers. They also show great displeasure and call it an Orlesian thing to do.

[EmperorSahlertz]

People also go to great lengths to give the Dalish ALL the blame. Especially if it helps Orlais or humans in general avoid responsibility or blame for their own actions, like killing Siona's sister.

The Dalish DO have all the blame. That is where the two sides significantly differ.

[Eliastion]

Is weird to me that the elves slaughter of a human town is somehow fine to some elf fans but Orlais retaliating over it is condemned by the same people, going into a different countries territory & killing its civilians is still a bad thing no matter how it started, made worse by the Dales starting their invasion afterwards

You know, that part is one of those "details" that I really don't understand. When we look at major victories, it would seem that way - that is, elves starting their invasion after Red Corssing (presumably deciding that the war is on so they may as well go and win it). But this doesn't hold up.

Wherever you look, history seems to hold to the idea that humans attacked first (that is, with an actual army). One would suppose that to be just the elven version - but it really isn't. Red Crossing is referred to not as "start of elven invasion", but as an incident that prompted humans to war. Reason humans attacked: Red Crossing. Reasons Chantry later proclaimed the war to be a new Exalted March? Red Crossing. But really, who would need to bring up Red Crossing when they had a goddamned heathen army that already captured Montsimmard and was marching on Val Royeaux? Full-scale invasion seems like a much better reason for all-out war against elves than some Maker-forsaken border town.

 

But no. Not Montsimmard, not losing half the territory - Red Crossing. We even have a codex entry from university of Val Royeaux questioning the legitimacy of the war. And what that flyer suggests? That Red Crossing could be a false-flag operation meant to give a pretext to start a war!

So there MUST be something really special about the incident. And frankly, I can see one convincing explanation: Red Crossing was the only thing that could be considered an elven aggression that wasn't prompted by previous human attack. Then it starts fitting somewhat. We have Red Crossing. Orlais responds with its army but greatly underestimates the enemy and has their butts handed to them, while the elves push forward after the retreating human forces. Montsimmard falls, elven army marches on; then Chantry calls for holy war...

But calling for this holy war they talk about Red Crossing - because that's the single elven attack they can convincingly point to. They can't use Montsimmard because Montsimmard falls after Dales have already been invaded, it's just a city that fell in a war. Red Crossing is different, as there were no war - regardless of the scale of actual incident, it can be presented as unprovoked elven attack on human settlement in (formally at least) peacetime. It can be made a symbol that Montsimmard - or any other battle - never could, them all being simply the price Orlais paid for their poorly thought-out initial invasion on Dales.

 

To tell the truth, I'm not entirely happy with this explanation. But, frankly, that's the only one I can think of that makes any degree of sense in explaining supposed importance of Red Crossing. The invasion that first followed Red Crossing must've been both human and woefully inadequate to Dalish military potential of the time.

 

...of course, there is also the meta-game explanation that creators of the lore were stuck with two different ideas about how the conflict started and progressed - and they never really figured out which one is the correct one. And I quietly think that's exactly the case here. But, oh well. That doesn't stop me from trying to somehow fit the bits and pieces of lore into some coherent big picture. After all, I can't really settle for in-game explanation "there are two versions of this war that exclude each other but both happened".

[dragonflight288]

The Dalish DO have all the blame. That is where the two sides significantly differ.

So the murder of Siona's sister was also the fault of the elves? Or the leaflet by a human scholar that suggests that Red Crossing was only a pretext Orlais used for a war they already wanted has no place in the discussion?

Please, that is utterly ridiculous.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You know, that part is one of those "details" that I really don't understand. When we look at major victories, it would seem that way - that is, elves starting their invasion after Red Corssing (presumably deciding that the war is on so they may as well go and win it). But this doesn't hold up.

Wherever you look, history seems to hold to the idea that humans attacked first (that is, with an actual army). One would suppose that to be just the elven version - but it really isn't. Red Crossing is referred to not as "start of elven invasion", but as an incident that prompted humans to war. Reason humans attacked: Red Crossing. Reasons Chantry later proclaimed the war to be a new Exalted March? Red Crossing. But really, who would need to bring up Red Crossing when they had a goddamned heathen army that already captured Montsimmard and was marching on Val Royeaux? Full-scale invasion seems like a much better reason for all-out war against elves than some Maker-forsaken border town.

 

But no. Not Montsimmard, not losing half the territory - Red Crossing. We even have a codex entry from university of Val Royeaux questioning the legitimacy of the war. And what that flyer suggests? That Red Crossing could be a false-flag operation meant to give a pretext to start a war!

So there MUST be something really special about the incident. And frankly, I can see one convincing explanation: Red Crossing was the only thing that could be considered an elven aggression that wasn't prompted by previous human attack. Then it starts fitting somewhat. We have Red Crossing. Orlais responds with its army but greatly underestimates the enemy and has their butts handed to them, while the elves push forward after the retreating human forces. Montsimmard falls, elven army marches on; then Chantry calls for holy war...

But calling for this holy war they talk about Red Crossing - because that's the single elven attack they can convincingly point to. They can't use Montsimmard because Montsimmard falls after Dales have already been invaded, it's just a city that fell in a war. Red Crossing is different, as there were no war - regardless of the scale of actual incident, it can be presented as unprovoked elven attack on human settlement in (formally at least) peacetime. It can be made a symbol that Montsimmard - or any other battle - never could, them all being simply the price Orlais paid for their poorly thought-out initial invasion on Dales.

 

To tell the truth, I'm not entirely happy with this explanation. But, frankly, that's the only one I can think of that makes any degree of sense in explaining supposed importance of Red Crossing. The invasion that first followed Red Crossing must've been both human and woefully inadequate to Dalish military potential of the time.

 

...of course, there is also the meta-game explanation that creators of the lore were stuck with two different ideas about how the conflict started and progressed - and they never really figured out which one is the correct one. And I quietly think that's exactly the case here. But, oh well. That doesn't stop me from trying to somehow fit the bits and pieces of lore into some coherent big picture. After all, I can't really settle for in-game explanation "there are two versions of this war that exclude each other but both happened".

What the hell are you talking about? The war STARTED with Red Crossing. The Orlesian didn't wait to call to war till Montsimamrd was taken. I don't know where the hell you got that idea... The CHANTRY didn't start calling for an Exalted March until after Montsimmard, but the Chantry and Orlais are two seperate entities, despite what some might try and tell you.

[EmperorSahlertz]

So the murder of Siona's sister was also the fault of the elves? Or the leaflet by a human scholar that suggests that Red Crossing was only a pretext Orlais used for a war they already wanted has no place in the discussion?

Please, that is utterly ridiculous.

You are welcome to present proof that Siona's sister was killed by humans, and that said humans weren't punished for the crime. I will wait right here until you present the evidence.

 

And that Codex Entry has every place in a discussion about the war. This however isn't a discussion about the war. This is a discussion about Red Crossing. An act of which the Dalish alone, are decidedly to blame for.

[Sunnie]

 

Got some more popcorn, carry on!

[Master Warder Z_]

Ewwww

Ugly actor

[MisterJB]

 Or the leaflet by a human scholar that suggests that Red Crossing was only a pretext Orlais used for a war they already wanted has no place in the discussion?

That particular scholar sounded remarkably like one of the SJWs you can find on tumblr nowadays. He accuses the Chantry account of being biased in favor of the humans; which, naturally, is; but completely fails to acknowledge his own bias when he will even defend the Dales' decision to remain neutral in the face of the Blight. Furthermore, he fails to provide any evidence for his claims, it's only what he believes happened.

 

I'm not saying humans didn't play a part in it and I wouldn't put using the attack by the Emerald Knigths as an excuse for expansion but let's take what that "scholar" says with a grain of salt. Or a cartload.

[Eliastion]

What the hell are you talking about? The war STARTED with Red Crossing. The Orlesian didn't wait to call to war till Montsimamrd was taken. I don't know where the hell you got that idea... The CHANTRY didn't start calling for an Exalted March until after Montsimmard, but the Chantry and Orlais are two seperate entities, despite what some might try and tell you.

Ok, since you're so sure - could you present me with an alternative in-world explanation as to why Red Crossing is consistently presented as so important? And why would Chantry point to it as the reason for declaring the ongoing war to be holy?

There are multiple codex entries referring to the attack on Red Crossing - with very little (if any) mention of seemingly much more important (and much more relevant to waging large-scale war) city of Montsimmard. Why would anyone bother bringing up RC so much if the elves - right after that - just followed up and conquered a bigger, more important city? Wouldn't the general heathen invasion attacking major cities be much more obvious as a reason for holy war instead of attack on - even destruction of - some insignificant village most people likely never heard of before?

My opinion is that there had to be something preventing the invasion from being so convenient for reasons of propaganda - and a good something would be the even invasion being, in fact, a counter-offensive.

 

But if you have a better - or just different - explanation, I'll gladly listen to it. Well, read it. You know what I mean  

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ok, since you're so sure - could you present me with an alternative in-world explanation as to why Red Crossing is consistently presented as so important? And why would Chantry point to it as the reason for declaring the ongoing war to be holy?

There are multiple codex entries referring to the attack on Red Crossing - with very little (if any) mention of seemingly much more important (and much more relevant to waging large-scale war) city of Montsimmard. Why would anyone bother bringing up RC so much if the elves - right after that - just followed up and conquered a bigger, more important city? Wouldn't the general heathen invasion attacking major cities be much more obvious as a reason for holy war instead of attack on - even destruction of - some insignificant village most people likely never heard of before?

My opinion is that there had to be something preventing the invasion from being so convenient for reasons of propaganda - and a good something would be the even invasion being, in fact, a counter-offensive.

 

But if you have a better - or just different - explanation, I'll gladly listen to it. Well, read it. You know what I mean

Why Red Crossing is important? Because it was the first attack on a civilian population, by either side. Previous to that it had "just" been border skirmishes, but military actions nevertheless. Red Crossing was an undefended human town, which were slaughtered to a man by the Elves. That is why it is important. It blew it all up to full blown war, instead of just "bad relations".

[andy6915]

You are welcome to present proof that Siona's sister was killed by humans, and that said humans weren't punished for the crime. I will wait right here until you present the evidence.

 

And that Codex Entry has every place in a discussion about the war. This however isn't a discussion about the war. This is a discussion about Red Crossing. An act of which the Dalish alone, are decidedly to blame for.

Why are you all saying "Dalish"? This is the incident that evicted them from the Dales, there were no actual Dalish as we know them back then. The Dalish clans only came about AFTER the war that started at Red Crossing, so there are no Dalish to blame.

 

It's a minor quibble in the scheme of things, but this makes no sense. Shouldn't you rather be saying the "Emerald Knights" or something, since blaming Dalish clans for something that occurred before they even existed is kinda nonsensical? Unless you're using Dalish as in "a citizen of the Dales like an Antivan is from Antiva" sort of way, but using it that way just causes confusion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why are you all saying "Dalish"? This is the incident that evicted them from the Dales, there were no actual Dalish as we know them back then. The Dalish clans only came about AFTER the war that started at Red Crossing, so there are no Dalish to blame.

 

It's a minor quibble in the scheme of things, but this makes no sense. Shouldn't you rather be saying the "Emerald Knights" or something, since blaming Dalish clans for something that occurred before they even existed is kinda nonsensical? Unless you're using Dalish as in "a citizen of the Dales like an Antivan is from Antiva" sort of way, but using it that way just causes confusion.

They are from the Dales, ergo they are Dalish.

[Steelcan]

What else are we to call elves who lived in the Dales?

[Master Warder Z_]

What else are we to call elves who lived in the Dales?

Skid marks on the underpants of society?

[andy6915]

What else are we to call elves who lived in the Dales?

 
I already suggest Emerald Knights, especially since they're the ones who explicitly took part in the Red Crossing incident. Or you could just say "Dales" to refer to elves from the actual Dales nation, even if it is grammatically not quite correct (like "The Dales sacked Red Crossing or something, it fits).
 

Skid marks on the underpants of society?

[MisterJB]

 

The problem with the Dales is that it's full of Dalish.

 

 

[Boost32]

I already suggest Emerald Knights, especially since they're the ones who explicitly took part in the Red Crossing incident. Or you could just say "Dales" to refer to elves from the actual Dales nation, even if it is grammatically not quite correct.
 

And the Emerald Knights were Dalish elves, the Dalish clans took the name to honor their lost home.