[003]
random1
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Is there any evidence that the Forsworn are \
to:
Is there any evidence that the Forsworn are \\\"genocidally racist\\\"?
[Quote: You can side with the Forsworn who are genocidally racist.] According to the in-game book _The Bear of Markarth_, from 4E 174-176 the Forsworn ruled over the Reach fairly. They committed \\\"some crimes\\\" often [against those Nords] accused of being the harshest towards their native workers\\\". That would be a far cry from genocide. According to the book, it was Ulfric, not the Forsworn, who committed war crimes.
I realize that in-game books aren\\\'t always accurate but what evidence is there that this book is not accurate? What evidence is there that the Forsworn are genocidal?
[Quote: You can side with the Forsworn who are genocidally racist.] According to the in-game book _The Bear of Markarth_, from 4E 174-176 the Forsworn ruled over the Reach fairly. They committed \\\"some crimes\\\" often [against those Nords] accused of being the harshest towards their native workers\\\". That would be a far cry from genocide. According to the book, it was Ulfric, not the Forsworn, who committed war crimes.
I realize that in-game books aren\\\'t always accurate but what evidence is there that this book is not accurate? What evidence is there that the Forsworn are genocidal?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Is there any evidence that the Forsworn are \
to:
Is there any evidence that the Forsworn are \\\"genocidally racist\\\"
[Quote: You can side with the Forsworn who are genocidally racist.] According to the in-game book _The Bear of Markarth_, from 4E 174-176 the Forsworn ruled over the Reach fairly. They committed \\\"some crimes\\\" often [against those Nords] accused of being the harshest towards their native workers\\\". That would be a far cry from genocide. According to the book, it was Ulfric, not the Forsworn, who committed war crimes.
I realize that in-game books aren\\\'t always accurate but what evidence is there that this book is not accurate? What evidence is there that the Forsworn are genocidal?
[Quote: You can side with the Forsworn who are genocidally racist.] According to the in-game book _The Bear of Markarth_, from 4E 174-176 the Forsworn ruled over the Reach fairly. They committed \\\"some crimes\\\" often [against those Nords] accused of being the harshest towards their native workers\\\". That would be a far cry from genocide. According to the book, it was Ulfric, not the Forsworn, who committed war crimes.
I realize that in-game books aren\\\'t always accurate but what evidence is there that this book is not accurate? What evidence is there that the Forsworn are genocidal?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Statistically\\\" and \\\"just so happened\\\" implies that she and Sokka were just plopped, independently and individually, on the ice field entirely at random with no control over their destination, which is clearly not the case. They presumably went out there together, which puts them in the same spot to start with, and then for whatever reason, neither of them wandered a large distance away from the other.
There are numerous reasons for them to have been near each other, as I\\\'ve mentioned, but only really one strong reason for why they wouldn\\\'t be: That it is physically dangerous for Sokka to be close by. This is simply not the case, and Katara and Sokka would be aware of that fact--they grew up in the environment and would have experienced or been taught about the dangers.
Absent of the concern for Sokka\\\'s physical safety, there are more reasons why they should be fairly close to one another than reasons they shouldn\\\'t.
In this setting, water is clearly not a \\\"volatile element[[hottip:*:\\\'Volatile\\\' means, roughly, \\\'likely to vaporize or explode,\\\' by the by]]\\\" that risks hurting someone through simple exposure. Ergo, there\\\'s no FridgeLogic in why there\\\'s little caution exercised when doing something that is basically harmless.
There are numerous reasons for them to have been near each other, as I\\\'ve mentioned, but only really one strong reason for why they wouldn\\\'t be: That it is physically dangerous for Sokka to be close by. This is simply not the case, and Katara and Sokka would be aware of that fact--they grew up in the environment and would have experienced or been taught about the dangers.
Absent of the concern for Sokka\\\'s physical safety, there are more reasons why they should be fairly close to one another than reasons they shouldn\\\'t.
In this setting, water is clearly not a \\\"volatile element[[hottip:*:\\\'Volatile\\\' means, roughly, \\\'likely to vaporize or explode,\\\' by the by]]\\\" that risks hurting someone through simple exposure. Ergo, there\\\'s no FridgeLogic in why there\\\'s little caution exercised when doing something that is basically harmless.
