169 réponses à ce sujet

[Jedi Master of Orion]

One could say the blaze started in the Second Blight when the Dales refused to come to the aid of Orlais.

 

Or with the disappearance of Ameridan.

 

Or Maferath's betrayal and the deaths of Andraste and Shartan.

 

Or Tevinter enslaving the elves to begin with.

 

Go back far enough, you'll find someone "who started it first" 

 

What matters is "What do you do about it now?"  Red Crossing was both humans and elves frakking it up for everyone.  And until they both shoulder their equal share of the burden, they're going to just go on hating each other because someone's ancestor wronged someone else's ancestor.

 

I get what you are saying, but you could probably make the strongest case for Siona's sister being the starting point of this particular conflict based on it's relevance to the spark that started it.

[Heimdall]

The blaze was started by the murder of Siona's sister.

Her death was just one event in a long sequence of border violence between the Dales and Orlais, it didn't escalate into war until one group of Emerald Knights took it upon themselves to pursue a supposed traitor to a human village, until one of those Knights killed an unarmed villager in front of her kin and sparked a massacre.

The event that led to this was not the sister's death, but the brother's decision to leave his home for a human woman, that was why the Knights crossed the border in the first place. The sister's death didn't effect anything but Siona's judgement.

[Xilizhra]

Her death was just one event in a long sequence of border violence between the Dales and Orlais, it didn't escalate into war until one group of Emerald Knights took it upon themselves to pursue a supposed traitor to a human village, until one of those Knights killed an unarmed villager in front of her kin and sparked a massacre.

The event that led to this was not the sister's death, but the brother's decision to leave his home for a human woman, that was why the Knights crossed the border in the first place. The sister's death didn't effect anything but Siona's judgement.

That was the opening move of the war; the spark to ignite the war was the murder of Siona's sister.

 

But it really doesn't matter. Humans have committed far more injustices to elves than the reverse.

[Heimdall]

That was the opening move of the war; the spark to ignite the war was the murder of Siona's sister.

But it really doesn't matter. Humans have committed far more injustices to elves than the reverse.

A spark refers to the event that begins hostilities. The sister's death didn't start anything new. The only person it affected was Siona.

To be clear, I don't blame the elves more than the humans overall in the grand scheme, but incidents like the sister's murder were not uncommon in the border violence. It did not trigger any new response or reprisal. All it did was make Siona hateful, which affected how she reacted in an unrelated situation.

[Master Warder Z_]

 I don't blame the elves more than the humans overall in the grand scheme

 

I do.

[dgcatanisiri]

I have to say, I've always been rather befuddled as to how the death of Siona's sister by the humans doesn't seem to matter for the arguments. Whether as a "first punch thrown" or as a catalyst for ensuing events or whatever. Red Crossing is constantly touted as a "See!? Elves did it first! Its their fault and they deserve their fate!" but I see it more as a straw that broke the camel's back. There was the undisputed murder of Siona's sister by humans, coupled with "losing" her brother to the humans and their one god, which led to a thing, which led to another thing, which finally led to a full scale war. And before all that, there was doubtlessly plenty of border skirmishes and conflicts between humans and elves. Humans killed elves unjustly. Elves killed humans unjustly. Plenty of previous casus bellis there. Wars have been declared for less. When you have an imperialist expansionist empire with a one-true-god complex and an isolationist kingdom of heathen non-humans that also kinda stands in the way of expansion, there's gonna be conflict and it won't really matter who really "started" it.

 

Sigh....I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say anymore....

 

EDIT: its impossible to blame a single factor when there were so many factors. And a one-sided blame does not belong in this. Not just the humans. Not just the elves. Both.

 

I've been saying this (well, shouting it at the screen, usually) for a while now. Cassandra will, after picking up the memory on the beach behind the main camp, remark 'so began the animosity that destroyed the Dales,' referring to Ameridan not being there to convince the elves to join in the fight against the Blight. That is a gross oversimplification that ignores all the history that led to that point.

 

Cassandra's attitude is the kind of thing that really seals the deal on me giving the Dalish the scroll from the Knights Tomb. She's one of the best examples of the Chantry believers, even supports the idea of fighting back against the amended history of the Chantry, and even she has that filter on things of 'the elves brought this on themselves. If the best of what the Chantry can represent can't get past that, puts the onus of guilt on one side of the conflict, what chance is there that any of the worst of the Chantry would accept that there is guilt on both sides?

[Xilizhra]

I've been saying this (well, shouting it at the screen, usually) for a while now. Cassandra will, after picking up the memory on the beach behind the main camp, remark 'so began the animosity that destroyed the Dales,' referring to Ameridan not being there to convince the elves to join in the fight against the Blight. That is a gross oversimplification that ignores all the history that led to that point.

 

Cassandra's attitude is the kind of thing that really seals the deal on me giving the Dalish the scroll from the Knights Tomb. She's one of the best examples of the Chantry believers, even supports the idea of fighting back against the amended history of the Chantry, and even she has that filter on things of 'the elves brought this on themselves. If the best of what the Chantry can represent can't get past that, puts the onus of guilt on one side of the conflict, what chance is there that any of the worst of the Chantry would accept that there is guilt on both sides?

To be fair, Cassandra is not the best of what the Chantry can represent; that's Leliana.

[Iakus]

Well, the elves are far more willing than the humans,

  Not that I've noticed.

 

 

not to mention that the humans have inflicted far, far more injustices on the elves in the meantime. The balance sheet isn't even remotely equal.

Have they?  And if so, is it because they were human, or because they were the victors of the war, and it's harder to punch up than down?

[Xilizhra]

Not that I've noticed.

See the contrasting reactions of those you give the scroll to.

 

 

Have they?

****** yes.

 

 

And if so, is it because they were human, or because they were the victors of the war, and it's harder to punch up than down?

Why does it matter? If justice is to be sought, it's justice for the elves.

[Iakus]

See the contrasting reactions of those you give the scroll to.

 

One clan that lives nears humans.  How about the clans that attack humans on sight?  Or avoid them entirely?  Are their hearts suddenly softened because of a tale of star-crossed lovers?

 

 

 

Why does it matter? If justice is to be sought, it's justice for the elves.

Because "justice"=/="vengeance" 

[Xilizhra]

One clan that lives nears humans.  How about the clans that attack humans on sight?  Or avoid them entirely?  Are their hearts suddenly softened because of a tale of star-crossed lovers?

No way of knowing, yet. Hopefully, we'll learn more later.

 

 

Because "justice"=/="vengeance" 

Quite so. But I wouldn't call the emancipation of elves "vengeance."

[Master Warder Z_]

One clan that lives nears humans.

 

I still don't see how four people make a clan, I always thought they were a bunch of squatters personally, I was actually surprised that their location popped up on the map...like it was important or something.

[Master Warder Z_]

But I wouldn't call the emancipation of elves "vengeance."

 

I am conflicted here, If I say what the side of me that detests the elves wants to say it comes off as if I support Tevinter, if I say what the anti Tevinter side of me wants to say then I support the elves being  more then laborers and or canon fodder to throw at Darkspawn (which I don't) I am conflicted.

 

...Ah here we go, the Orlesian solution is the best one, they are just penniless citizens like everyone else who isn't nobility, except they have to live in Alienages, which is good, it keeps the stench of their heathen backward ways away from good Maker fearing folk. Of course the solution wasn't perfect as it let entire scores of the vermin escape, I say those who didn't accept that very generous offer to live among humans should have been tossed into mass graves minus a head.

 

o.o Honestly elves just spit upon every kindness done to them, when equality is a myth that the weak use to justify their position while doing nothing to better themselves, it would be different if those bums actually contributed to society, but they don't, they act as if their menial labor is somehow superior to the menial labor done by a human, because their a elf and deserve more. I say they deserve a smack across the face and a trip to the mines to bring up some valuable ore for a set period of time until their attitude improves.

[BansheeOwnage]

To be fair, Cassandra is not the best of what the Chantry can represent; that's Leliana.

Well, if that's the case, we should probably just raze it to the ground and be done with it.

[Gervaise]

There is no point in arguing with this fellow.(Master Warder Z)   It is clear that he hates elves simply because they are elves and his prejudice won't allow him to see anything else.   Clearly he has never role played an elf or even tried to empathise with them as a decent minded human.    He is simply of the mind set of every Chevalier, every Orlesian noble and most of the Chantry in Thedas, plus the majority of Magisters; no wonder the elves have it so bad.

[Xilizhra]

Well, if that's the case, we should probably just raze it to the ground and be done with it.

Do elaborate?

[In Exile]

http://dragonage.wik...ntry:_The_Dales
http://dragonage.wik...ch_of_the_Dales
http://dragonage.wik...ath_of_Elandrin
http://dragonage.wik...ll_of_the_Dales

That doesn't prove that the Chantry did anything. It's not even clear what "lies" this is in reference to in the narrative. Assuming the humans committed murder in their own territory - or accidentally or intentionally border hopped and killed a resident of the Dales - is a criminal matter totally independent of the armed incursion by the Emerald Knights.

There's no actual rational connection between the two apart from the festering rage on the part of the Emerald knights. The conversion issue is a red herring - that's a personal decision for a deserter.

The ultimate and basic facts are that the Emerald Knights - without any authorization from their government - decided to take on an armed incursion to find a potential deserter. Their beliefs are irrelevant because at that point they arguably went rogue.

[In Exile]

The blaze was started by the murder of Siona's sister.

No. That was a random death admittedly inflicted by peasants who were far removed from Orlais. The Emerald Knights didn't petition their government for justice. It would be one thing to say that Orlais refused to punish or investigate the death of a single Dalish civilian but even that would be a far cry from a casus belli.

But none of that happened. Her death had 0 effect on anything other than the bitterness and anger of the Emerald Knights.

[BansheeOwnage]

Do elaborate?

It was a half-joke, since I think if Princess Stabbity-Stab is the paragon of the Chantry, that doesn't say very good things about the Chantry.

[Master Warder Z_]

There is no point in arguing with this fellow.(Master Warder Z) It is clear that he hates elves simply because they are elves and his prejudice won't allow him to see anything else. Clearly he has never role played an elf or even tried to empathise with them as a decent minded human. He is simply of the mind set of every Chevalier, every Orlesian noble and most of the Chantry in Thedas, plus the majority of Magisters; no wonder the elves have it so bad.

I can't hate what isn't real, I can however find both it and its allegory message pretentious as hell and doubly annoying.



But no, I don't hate pixels, I find them and their blanket stereotypical message arrogant and boring. Oh woe to the oppresed minority trope.

I don't invest enough in fiction to hate fiction.

[Iakus]

There's no actual rational connection between the two apart from the festering rage on the part of the Emerald knights. The conversion issue is a red herring - that's a personal decision for a deserter.
 

And his note makes it extremely doubtful he was even converting:

 

Perhaps your priestess distrusts the sincerity of "uncivilized" elves. If she must hear me say I will follow the Maker, so be it. Your god intercedes as much as ours. My life will not change.

 

He was just saying the words so he'd be allowed to live among humans.

[Iakus]

 

Quite so. But I wouldn't call the emancipation of elves "vengeance."

Too often had we fought with humans along our borders until the beginning was lost to memory. Rumors of an abduction stirred. As always, their Chantry was swift to spread lies. In haste and anger, they killed Siona's sister for wandering too near the hunters' path. You carried her body back to us, you mourned with us—yet your heart was distracted. Siona begged for vengeance and you turned away

[Master Warder Z_]

Too often had we fought with humans along our borders until the beginning was lost to memory. Rumors of an abduction stirred. As always, their Chantry was swift to spread lies. In haste and anger, they killed Siona's sister for wandering too near the hunters' path. You carried her body back to us, you mourned with us—yet your heart was distracted. Siona begged for vengeance and you turned away

Sounds like the NKVD rather then a order of knights.

[Dean_the_Young]

It's obviously the Dalish who should get it, as they're more likely to be honest about it than the Chantry.

 

Since when?

 

Setting aside that the Chantry has a better record of writing down and sharing history for scholarly debate vis-a-vis Dalish oral history, the Chantry version of the events was far more honest than the Dalish handling of it.
 

 

You can't metagame (actually, I take that back, you flagrantly do), but Dalish history has consistently been just as if not more self-serving and selective as the Chantry. The chantry keeps records of its past, enough so that there's sustained scholarly debate on re-interpretations and restoring the truth. The Dalish simply don't know their past because they've discarded the inconvenient bits.

 

 

I might buy an argument if you thought the Dalish were more likely to print the history and share the texts around... but that'd have to overcome how the Dalish actually keep their history.

 

At least the Chantry actually knows what the Cantical of Shartan was and has it written down somewhere, even if it's out of favor. Where's the Dalish printing presses to spread this?

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm sorry but you seem to have missed out the first part of the story.   Elandrin, the Emerald Knight, fell in love with a human girl from Red Crossing.   He wanted her to come away with him or at least marry him.  She confided in one of the Chantry priestesses and she spread rumours of an abduction (the priestess presumably suggested that Elandrin was going to kidnap the girl and have his wicked way with her).   Hunters were sent out to keep watch for him.    Siona's sister was wandering in the woods near the village (which one must assume was likewise very near the border between the two realms) and crossed the path of the hunters who killed her.   Elandrin (probably on his way for a meeting with his love) found her body and took it back to the others.   After mourning her death with his companions, he returned to see his love and she explained to him that the Chantry sister would only believe his sincerity if he swore himself to the Maker.    He was going to agree to this but events conspired against them and tragedy ensued.   

 

Can you please explain to me how the humans weren't at least partly to blame for what occurred, first in spreading rumours about the intentions of the "uncivilised elf", second in having hunters try and ambush Elandrin , thirdly in killing Sonia' sister and later for murdering Elandrin and throwing his body in the river.

 

Easy- none of those actually cause Red Crossing.

 

 

To start, 'the humans' isn't a polity. 'They' don't decide anything on the basis of racial unity. The reoccuring racism of the Dalish is to misuse 'the humans' rather than 'the -actual political group being interacted with.' In human cultures, human is an adjective, not the identity. Siona doesn't know which humans- or even if it was humans- who killed her sister, let alone under what context.

 

 

Second, and just as easy, is that nothing 'the humans' did that you cite actually prompts, let alone explains, the massacre. The Emerald Knights didn't act because a Chantry mother was spreading rumors. The Villagers didn't fight the emerald knights because of rumors. They villagers fight the Emerald Knights because Sonia kills one of their own.

 

 

 

Third, Elandrin's death neither causes or is the justification for Red Crossing. It's the consequence of the murder Sonia has already committed spiraling out of control.