If not that, what would you offer as a compromise that might entice the Chantry to the negotiating table?

Your suggestions are based on the implicit assumption that the Chantry's ideology is rightfully dominant. That I contest. To agree to the Dalish mages having to go to the Circle, for instance, that's like  - to use a current example - to give in to Turkey's demand to extradite supposed members of the Gülen movement on their say-so, with no evidence that they've done anything wrong. It would go completely against fundamental aspects of the Dalish culture.

 

Any compromise that deserves the name has to treat the two cultures as equally valid, to start with (not that I think either one is particularly worth defending, but that's a different story). To agree to stop killing or imprisoning each other would be a good first step, along with visiting rights into the other's territory (not by armies, of course) in order to get to know each other better. Cultural contact, that would be the way to co-existence. The implicit assumption of superiority has to stop, on *both* sides. 

 

Agreeing to cultural contact would be a big step for the Dalish given their present stance, and especially since they're the less powerful culture. The other side has to recognize that. What comes of that, who knows? Maybe the Dalish will have to stay in remote regions in the end, maybe not, but I see no justification for a demand to submit to Chantry rules regarding mages, except perhaps for the surplus mages who would otherwise be cast out. As for their system of rulership, it isn't any worse than any other system on Thedas. That you change how you select your rulers as demanded by someone else is actually a most significant indication of submission. It's about the last thing any culture would agree to.

By making compromises and working on creating conditions where humans won't try to kill them if they stay in one place too long. They've done it in Rivaini, and there are absolutely things they could change about themselves that would make co-location far easier.

 

We know that the primary reasons they get chased off at an institutional level- and that's really all it is, a shooing rather than a deliberate attempt to hunt and kill- in a lot of places is because of their deliberate choice of mage policy. If they didn't insist on mageocracy and simply let mundanes be their history-keepers and leaders, the Templars wouldn't give a damn and the Chantry would only care in so much that bushwhacking occurs. Not bushwhacking humans is easy- it takes more effort to do than not to do- and compromises could be made about what happens to their mages.

 

There's actually a number of compromises that could be done. Might a Dalish clans in a Kingdom simply refuse to have any mages, and trade them to other clans to be someone other kingdom's problem? They could easily turn over mages to the Circles for training and safeguarding and Templar goodwill, with a possible negotiation of those mages being allowed to keep Dalish lore/visit Dalish clans and regularly interact. Or, if the Dalish clan was really convincing and credible and committed to a nomadic way of life, perhaps they could negotiate to bring the Templar oversight in- that a Templar maintains nominal oversight, and walks with the clan, and can mediate conflicts with human villagers.

That's not compromise, that's complete cultural surrender. You're asking the Dalish to give up one of their few cultural traditions all clans we've seen so far have in common - and what does the other side give for that?

So who knows what form the Maker might take, if he was ever to be revealed?

They said they won't do that. Which means Andrastianism stays a potentially valid religion while all others have been revealed as frauds as their objects of veneration have been revealed as mundane. Again, my point stands.

Well, when you get down to it, the lands DAI take place in are dominated by humans who follow the southern Chantry.  And so that is going to be the dominant religion shown in the game.  Yet even there we find people who believe in different ways.

 

We've got the devout Cassandra who believes the Chantry has lost it's way

We have the casual believer Sera who's terrified of the stories being "really real"

We have the non-religious believer Dorian 

We have Varric, who protestations to the side, has quietly started believing in the Maker in his own way.

 

And in addition, the mere existence of Coryphious paradoxically calls into question one of the biggest precepts of the Chantry:  That the magisters blackened the Golden CIty, and the Maker cursed them and cast them out. 

If you haven't noticed, that exactly underscores my point. The organization - the Chantry - may be criticized, but the beliefs themselves are never called into question. The mere existence of Corypheus calls into question exactly nothing. but rather supports the beliefs: he is a darkspawn, he was one of the magisters who entered the City. That the City was already black when he got there is asserted only by him - and who trusts the villain of the story?

And now it's been recycled and has become part of the collective mind - much like any idea disseminated in the internet - and being used outside the fantasy realm, in a fabulous demonstration of how formal education tends to be replaced by a fake popular culture, fabricated by the shadow groups that control the content online.

The use outside of fantasy is actually rather rare. I've never heard anyone I know doing it except in jest - and I know a lot of tabletop roleplayers.

@ShadowLordXII, Bayonet Hipshot:

 

I don't think there is favoritism towards the Chantry. Its flaws are obvious and often on-screen. In fact, the whole plot of Jaws of Hakkon reveals such an unprecedented level of hypocrisy and falsification of history, that any claim of favoritism is shaky at best. The retcons mentioned are made for plot convenience, not to favor the Chantry, and even if that is an additional outcome, it's easily countered by other facts like the above.

 

However, there is clear favoritism for Andrastianism as a religion. While the practices of the Chantry are questioned, the fundamental precepts of Andrastianism are supported throughout all stories told and by basically everyone with influence who isn't allied with the villains. Andrastian beliefs - as opposed to those of the elves, the qunari and the avvar - are never questioned except by the villains. 

The problem is the west love to use own measure stick to judge other cultures, even today. I used to have arguments with western Christians (or those who claim to be Christians but actually secular who never read Bible at all in their life) marrying cousins among Muslim community, it turn ugly. Christians in my own community don't give a **** about it.

 

Cousins are considered "ajnabi", the one who we must cover ourselves, careful with touchings, have limit in social interaction, because we can marry them.  Even they are relatives, relationship is more like friends than a family. It is something that western peoples are not used to isn't it?

From a psychological point of view, a reluctance to enter a relationship in spite of compatibility, general inclination, opportunity and orientation is most often observed among those who grew up together in close proximity. In modern times, that would not usually apply to cousins in the western cultures, so I really don't know why people are so much against it. Some kind of inherited ideological imprinting I guess.

 

@Arshei:

Love is love, as long as it comes from both sides and both sides can be considered capable of freely consenting. Anything more restrictive than that is reactionary BS. It's not altogether surprising that older societes are less enlightened - after all, a relationship usually meant children, but we should know better. We even have the technology to find out whether having children would be risky, so I see no reason for that taboo to stand unchallenged either. It is also a very cultural thing. Between old Egypt, European nobility and some Muslim countries, there were societies where incest wasn't such a big thing, so I no see reason to act superior about this. #

 

@DeathSceptre:

You feel what you feel, but do you morally condemn it because of that? There are quite a few things I personally find disgusting, but where I have no business interfering.

i'm not sure why a person would see as preferable to waste the opportunity to being remembered in history for their discovery just because they did not like what they discovered.I also don't think that the chantry is more powerful/less powerful for a temple on the top of a mountain.

Different characters. My main Warden Eorlin Amell was enough of a scholar to value the discovery and respect Genitivi as a scholar, even though he hates southern Andrastianism, but my Dalish Arvellen Mahariel saw it differently. The discovery would give merit to some of the myths surrounding the founding figures of Andrastianism, which would boost the faith across southern Thedas. He really didn't like that.

 

Personally, I'm closer to Eorlin Amell. I think the power of religion doesn't depend on the knowledge of the truth of its claims, but rather on the lack thereof. But then, he's not the only character I've played.

While true, there's a legitimate biological instinct behind the majority of people seeing it as "sick," and it's something that you have to go out of your way to unlearn unless you didn't have it to begin with.

Even if you don't unlearn it, I think that mere revulsion is never enough for a moral condemnation. You have to demonstrate that some valid moral principle is violated by an action to justify that. In the light of that, I see many traditional distinctions as merely aesthetic categories.

Carrying a spirit in not necessarily a bad thing, so I object to the term "abomination" unless we're speaking of entities that act like one. Having said that, it appears that - given DG's statements about Anders - that carrying a spirit can indeed affect the taint. I wouldn't like this to be the only cure, but I can see it's a probable candidate.

 

and to what end?

 

In order to prevent the dominant religion from becoming even more powerful. That was, in fact, the motivation of one of my Wardens who killed Genitivi. I'm not claiming any moral high ground for that, but it is a pragmatic rationale.

Ive been reading forums and comments about who the new Protagonist is going to be in 4. some want Inky to return because trespasser ends very open ended others want a new protagonist so we can have a new point of view. I think Bioware should do what some people have suggested and do a dual protagonist approach, but wont doing that take away from the NP if Inky returns and how would that work given what happen to the inquisitor at the end you might be asking. well its simple when ever we return to the base of Operations what ever it be we play as the inquisitor where we do all the war table stuff and make the big choice like do we ask the quinari or tevintars for help and anytime we leave the base we play as the NP where we can make some small choices and interact with the companions.  what do you guys think could this work?

Wouldn't work for me since I don't want the new protagonist to be subordinate to the Inquisitor. In fact, with my next protagonist I want to get as far away as possible from the religious aspect of DA.

 

Better leave the Inquisitor in the background altogether. If the Inquisitors stick to the mission and don't express any personal opinions - very much unlike Hawke in DAI, grrrr - I'm ok with them as an NPC.

I remember people demanding Bethany romance before DA2 came out... Sadly, Bioware aren't that sick. Such a pity, they could be on Fox News again.

I don't see anything "sick" in an incestuous relationship. It's unusual, sure, and care should be taken with having children, but IMO the various laws against incestuous relationships (as opposed to laws against having children) are leftovers from a time when a relationship usually meant children - outdated, and I can't see *any* reason to oppose it on moral grounds these days.

There is no point in killing Genitivi other than for the sake of being evil.

Actually, there is: you may not want the story and/or the location of the temple to become known.

Hmm....as for the OP's question:

 

Do I like City Elves? Well....no. At least not more or less than any other group. I like or dislike individuals, or ideologies, but not groups unless they can be defined by a common ideology like the qunari, and even then it's more of a statistical tendency rather than a rule. I am sympathetic to their situation like I'd be to any other group of people relegated to the status of second-class citizens, but that does not automatically mean that I like them all.

 

I greatly enjoyed playing a female City Elf in DAO, mainly because I felt that getting out of that attempted-rape situation alive and getting the opportunity to punish those responsible was an act of self-empowerment against overwhelming odds. It had nothing intrinsically to do with race, however. I'd have enjoyed it the same with a human from some marginalized group in a similar situation.

 

Also, I'd like to repeat that oppression is not defined by a high prevalence of abuse, but rather by (1) the psychological state created by the knowledge of what *could* happen, and the knowledge that you'd have no recourse against members of the dominant faction, culture or political system, if something bad should happen to you, and/or (2) laws that systematically disadvantage the marginalized group and prevent its members from taking part in the life of the dominant culture.

I wouldn't go so far as to say defenders of the status quo are shown as "the good guys".  At least not all the time.  I mean, the status quo is what brought about the split between mages and Templars, and the Orlesian civil war.
 
Corypheus and Solas, in fact, represent going backwards to "the bad old days" where things were arguably worse.

Exactly my point. We're more or less forced to defend the status quo because the villains give us something worse to worry about. Also, yes, I maintain that the defenders of the status quo are always painted as the good guys - in the end, in spite of all the infighting we all end up on the same side out of necessity. DAI goes even further and lets those people sideline your character in order to counter any threat *you* might have posed to the status quo.
 

Change is inevitable.  Quickly or slowly.  In small ways or in large.  The question is:  what form do you want the change to be?

I want to fight for a philosophy I can support with conviction, rather than for one I must support out of necessity, and I want that philosophy to become ascendant. So far, the closest I can plausibly imagine to represent that is a reformed Tevinter. In any case, Southern Thedas' Andrastianism most emphatically isn't it.
 

And I'd support Tevinter more if Hessarian's policies had survived his death.

That's why I said "reformed" - or at least on track to a serious reform that couldn't be easily reversed.

The conflict between mundanes and mages has been simmering for three games, including a civil war. That's a little different. And the pre-Veil history we get tells us the world isn't utopian at all because of it. This type of "synthesis" actually makes more sense for DA, even if the whole point will be stopping the apocalypse removing the Veil would cause due to good ol' Solas.

Not what I meant. The conflict is there, but the story suggests that it would be highly risky for a whole population of unprepared human to suddenly become mageborn, because of the threat posed by malevolent spirits, who most likely, wouldn't suddenly become less malevolent simply because the Veil is weakened or removed.

Having said that, the scenario is open for the hypothesis that demons aren't all that common after all, and the Avvar seem to get along quite well with the spirit world as a rule.

Haha, you're right.... although it's kind of too bad, because something like synthesis would probably actually work in the Dragon Age setting. DA has the metaphysical and magical plot elements to explain and support it...whereas ME didn't really, and it came off as space magic out of nowhere. But you could already imagine a Thedas co-existing with spirits and fade, because it's already been part of the world and narrative. We have already gone to the fade and have had spirit characters walking around, merging with people, and becoming humans, etc.

Not saying I necessarily want that to happen. But it'd be believable if they did. And the changes might not all necessarily be as dramatic or different as we expect.

If the Veil was removed, such things would be more common, and that wouldn't be an all that drastic change. However, it could make everyone mageborn, with all the perks and risks associated with that. The problem with such a scenario is the same as in ME3: the story so far suggests this is not a desirable outcome, and having it painted as desirable in the last minute by a controversial figure would be about as well received as it was in ME3.

On Tevinter and the Chantry's dogma at the start of DAO, I fan see why it could bother some people (like Ieldra said), but while the message might be against human achievement and a better future...what the magisters planned wasn't exactly that (putting aside the horrific cost in lives to achieve it, and the negative outcome).

Their motivation wasn't exactly enlightening, sure, but the achievement of having crossed a boundary people thought to be insurmountable remains. More to the point, though, this story - the founding myth of Andrastianism - makes of those events a generalized message about the supposed sin in stepping beyond the boundaries prescribed for you by your gods. That's why I call it a reactionary message, and why I find the abovementioned favoritism so annoying. The magisters were reckless and evil, and plainly didn't care what the world would have to pay for their ambition, but that doesn't make any such ambition evil.

So instead of the  Chantry being crippled beyond recovery by the revelations in DAI or at the very least a schism in the ranks, it is business as usual.   Now I am expected to go north and save Tevinter's a*** because the alternative is worse, the Qun conquers the north.    I live in hope that Dorian will actually be able to bring about real change with his lucerni and Calpernia's vision becomes the reality, that Tevinter becomes "a crafter of wonders, a beacon of hope against the savage Qunari" and that the slaves are freed in order to allow them to reach their true potential as citizens of the Imperium.    I'm taking bets now: even if he does, how long do you suppose it will last?

You know, it took about 15 seconds into DAO's intro to tell me I would dislike the dominant religion of the setting a great deal -  the first sentence ever spoken in this game sequence, one that came across to me as deeply reactionary in it message, reminding people of their station and denigrating human achievement and visions for a better future. That "prediction" has proven true, and my dislike deepened as I was forced to take up a religious role in DAI.   
 
At the same time, as I explored the lore of Thedas, I came tp deeply resent that a culture as interesting as Tevinter was relegated to the role of "Evil Empire". So, I harbor the same hope as you. No  matter the controversial history of its proponent, Calpernia's vision for Tevinter is one that resonates with me more than any other expressed vision for the future. That would be a cause I could embrace with passion, even knowing that the outcome would inevitably have its own downsides.

But then, those who look with wonder at the possibilities the future might bring appear to be increasingly in the minority, in RL as well as in video games. I'd rather see Bioware write against that dominant cultural trend.
 

Then again, may be Solas will come up with something really original (with the help of the PC) that doesn't involve total annihilation for the entire population, flora and fauna of modern Thedas.   If it is anything along the line of synthesis I think I will scream.

Yeah, me too. I supported Synthesis in the ME trilogy, but it left me feeling queasy because individuals couldn't opt out of it. A similar outcome on Thedas would feel like the Qun had won. I have sympathy for the agenda to bring back the ancient elves' magical aspects, but the price is not acceptable. Do it in a pocket dimension or something like that, and leave it to individuals to decide whether they want to live there or in Thedas-with-the-Veil.

In a way, yeah.

 

Funny how both he and Corypheus wanted to claim godlike power so they could turn back the clock to an era they thought was "better", huh? 

I've commented on that similarity before, but to get back to the topic: with characters who make plans like this, defenders of the status quo will inevitably be painted as the good guys, which is what the major Andrastian factions have been for a while now, and they look good because as bad as some aspects of the status quo engendered by their dominance are, there's something much worse lurking around the corner.

 

That's very annoying if you dislike Andrastianism. I'd rather have some sweeping change in the aftermath - or as a part - of one of our typical plots that benefits another non-"evil" faction (or even a reformed once-evil one). It is rather ironic. In the ME trilogy I wanted to defend a status quo that looked ever more desirable as details of possible alternatives materialized in the endings, but I couldn't. In DA, I'm put on rails to defend a status quo I've increasingly come to hate. It has become so bad that I occasionally contemplate how it would be to side with the villains just to sweep the Andrastianism-dominated status quo away. Of course, that would inevitably end up with a worse world. However, it would be really nice if I could work for a side I can support with some passion for a change, rather than being forced by strategy and political reason to work for the least-detestable one.

 

I feel like a one-person faction supporting the magic of Tevinter, the science ofthe qunari and an ethical framework dominated by  individual autonomy and obligation often alluded to by Solas, who unfortunately fails to live up to it. 

As for "disproving the existence of the maker", there's no way to disprove the existence of the maker. They can disprove the existence or legitimacy of Andraste and the way she represented her connection with the maker, thus, undermining the legitimacy of Andrastrianism as an organized religion, but you can't prove or disprove the existence of an absent, omnipotent creator figure. I imagine they will provide evidence regarding the nature of Andraste (I think she was a mage) and what her real agenda was, but I think it won't reflect strongly on whether there is or isn't a maker. It will only effect the religion she created by allegedly speaking for him. 

You can't disprove it in a strict sense, but if people treated the question of the existence of their gods like any other hypothesis, they wouldn't believe in them unless there was some evidence *for* their existence - and an extraordinary hypothesis like the existence of a creator god would require equally extraordinary evidence. "You can't disprove it, thus my faith is justified" is complete BS.

 

I would rather like someone on Thedas to apply an analytical mindset to this question and come up with the answer: "Well, I can't know with complete certainty, but all our knowledge is preliminary, and based on what I observe, I can preliminarily conclude that there is no Maker".

I'm sure a lot of the CC will be good. But not the hair. This is a Bioware game. They have like... a blood pact with Satan to not have good hair. 

I say the're giving the community something to b*tch about so we don't notice the more important flaws...

Does it matter, people ask? Well, yes it does.

 

(1) If they make the story with a default female protagonist in mind, that will be noticeable, just as it is very noticeable that Shepard or the Inquisitor were mainly thought of as male, regardless of possible customization. If you doubt that for DAI, just look at the animations in some scenes.

 

(2) If it's just a case of making the CC default preselect female, that will test the hypothesis "many players only choose male because it's the default", and if she has a special face like default Shepard that will also test the hypothesis "many players choose the default face because its technically better-realized" (though I don't agree that defaultShep looked better than any others)

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another.  Which granted you just demonstrated you know in this post, but in the OP most of the situations you brought up aren't...by themselves...hypocrisy. 

Not quite. Hypocrisy is applying different standards to others than you do to yourself. If you're telling people what they want to hear in full awareness of the fact that you're lying, that's simply dishonesty.