968 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

We're not talking about kicking dogs, children, or elderly. We're saying that an organization we know rewrites history can't be trusted to the matter of historical records.

To put it simply, we are talking about making giant leaps to conclusions. That includes making presumptions on what gets rewritten, and the reasoning behind it.

Not true in the case of the Dissonant Verse of Shartan.  The Sisters at the Denirum Chantry tell us when those verses were removed from the Chant of Light and why and make no bones and no apologies about it.  They were removed during Divine Renata's reign in order to justify the exalted march against the Dales.  This isn't guesswork.  We are TOLD this by representatives of the chantry themselves (admittedly one is dotty but still...)

If we know at least one set were removed for overtly political reasons, then it stands to reason to view all other chantry changes to the chant with the gravest of suspicions.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

tmp7704 wrote...

To put it simply, we are talking about making giant leaps to conclusions. That includes making presumptions on what gets rewritten, and the reasoning behind it.

Everyone's free to their opinion, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume the Chantry has altered the Chant before when we know for a fact they did it at least once.  The same way we can't trust the Dwarven Shaperates after seeing them stick their fingers in their ears, screaming "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the dwarf noble origin story.

[Xilizhra]

Aren't "Dissonant Verses" in plural mentioned? Shartan was just one example of them.

[Wulfram]

As far as Shartan goes, they only seem to have rewritten the Chant, not "history". Since Shartan is still apparently a well known and openly discussed historical figure, and the Canticle's removal is not hidden.

[tmp7704]

Rifneno wrote...

Everyone's free to their opinion, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume the Chantry has altered the Chant before when we know for a fact they did it at least once. 

You can of course assume. I think it's good to remember at all time it's just that, an assumption, though. Rather than established facts to build theories on. And that theories built on nothing but such assumptions are really just houses of cards themselves.

Heck, you have good example of that in the topic of this very thread, and Mr.Gaider's followup.

Modifié par tmp7704, 17 août 2011 - 02:51 .

[Urzon]

There has not been a single iota to suggest that she is a mage. I see it as kind of crackpot that she is a mage that hates mages and thus rose to the highest position in the Chantry to hate them even more. That she even hates mages (outside of wanting circles) is something you have to make a stretch to assume.

That Andraste may be a mage is supported by some in game evidence in the form of documents. I say that calling everyone and their uncles old god babies as this forum is prone to do is kind of crackpot as well.

When you ask the Guardian in the Gauntlet about her, doesn't he say that she use to spent days in meditation at a time without food or drink?

That could be easily speculated into her being mage. Since, it sound awfully alot like what happens when mages on into the fade.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Wulfram wrote...

As far as Shartan goes, they only seem to have rewritten the Chant, not "history". Since Shartan is still apparently a well known and openly discussed historical figure, and the Canticle's removal is not hidden.

Well, the Dalish are around as well, so it is hard to suppress history that way.

In any case, the Chantry considers mention of his accomplishments alongside Andraste as heretical because of what transpired later. That to me puts the Chantry in a sort of an arrogant light - as being able to control/influence people through their beliefs.

[TEWR]

Urzon wrote...

There has not been a single iota to suggest that she is a mage. I see it as kind of crackpot that she is a mage that hates mages and thus rose to the highest position in the Chantry to hate them even more. That she even hates mages (outside of wanting circles) is something you have to make a stretch to assume.

That Andraste may be a mage is supported by some in game evidence in the form of documents. I say that calling everyone and their uncles old god babies as this forum is prone to do is kind of crackpot as well.

When you ask the Guardian in the Gauntlet about her, doesn't he say that she use to spent days in meditation at a time without food or drink?

That could be easily speculated into her being mage. Since, it sound awfully alot like what happens when mages on into the fade.

I'll just leave this here:

A mage of the Antivan circle liked to travel the fade as a hobby once forgot to inform the templars that she would be absent from her body for three whole days. They mistakenly buried her alive. Another mage claimed her shoes.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 août 2011 - 03:02 .

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

As far as Shartan goes, they only seem to have rewritten the Chant, not "history". Since Shartan is still apparently a well known and openly discussed historical figure, and the Canticle's removal is not hidden.

Shartan is well known apparently within the Chantry priesthood and the Dalish Elves.  I am not so certain about the Laity (similiar to the Gospels of Christ that aren't formally recognized by the RCC and thus not included in the bible proper).

As for rewriting history, if you read the codex entries for the Exalted March on the Dales as a Dalish and otherwise (the Chantry PoV), it's clear that someone is rewriting history, and given we know from other places (see Adralla the "bard" who actually had to be a practicing blood-mage), I'd bet on the Chantry rewriting history.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

Aren't "Dissonant Verses" in plural mentioned? Shartan was just one example of them.

Indeed.  We know of at least two for certain in the game lore:  The Verses of Shartan (source DAO Denerim Chantry Sisters) and The Verses of Malfarat (source DAA Statues in Wending Wood Quest).

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

tmp7704 wrote...

You can of course assume. I think it's good to remember at all time it's just that, an assumption, though. Rather than established facts to build theories on. And that theories built on nothing but such assumptions are really just houses of cards themselves.

Heck, you have good example of that in the topic of this very thread, and Mr.Gaider's followup.

I suppose you think it's not an assumption that the Chantry is being truthful even though we know they haven't been?  A bit naive if anything.

[tmp7704]

Rifneno wrote...

I suppose you think it's not an assumption that the Chantry is being truthful even though we know they haven't been?  A bit naive if anything.

It may be naive to assume that's what i'm presuming

We know the chantry does edits to the content of the chant. They openly admit it and their scholars appear to be quite willing to discuss the edits which were made (which make the whole "the chantry hasn't been truthful" angle a bit dubious, but that's another story)

My stance is instead, since we know very little about the actual content of the chant, the scope of edits done and the reasoning behind these individual edits, the statements along the lines of "the chant has been purged from all positive mentions of mages" are so speculative, it's not even funny*. Especially since, ironically, i don't think we're told of even single instance of an edit made to such effect?

*) ok i lied, it's hillarious

[Rifneno]

tmp7704 wrote...

It may be naive to assume that's what i'm presuming

That's exactly why I was careful not to say that's what you specifically were presuming that. Obvious response is obvious, not clever.

[tmp7704]

Rifneno wrote...

That's exactly why I was careful not to say that's what you specifically were presuming that. Obvious response is obvious, not clever.

And consequently my response was in kind, not stating that's what you're specifically presuming. But that's flying off on a pretty pointless tangent, isn't it

[Wulfram]

IanPolaris wrote...

As for rewriting history, if you read the codex entries for the Exalted March on the Dales as a Dalish and otherwise (the Chantry PoV), it's clear that someone is rewriting history

Not really, if I'm reading the right entry the two accounts don't so much conflict as reflect two different perspectives.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

As for rewriting history, if you read the codex entries for the Exalted March on the Dales as a Dalish and otherwise (the Chantry PoV), it's clear that someone is rewriting history

Not really, if I'm reading the right entry the two accounts don't so much conflict as reflect two different perspectives.

No.  The accounts are adjoint.  Both can not be true.  Both can be lies.  The perspectives are also different to be sure, but it's deeper than that.

-Polaris

[MichaelFinnegan]

tmp7704 wrote...

We know the chantry does edits to the content of the chant. They openly admit it and their scholars appear to be quite willing to discuss the edits which were made (which make the whole "the chantry hasn't been truthful" angle a bit dubious, but that's another story)

No, I don't think it is particularly lying. But we can observe what effects those edits could actually have. We can reasonably assume that the ones who do get to study those "older copies," as they were, would be those who are in the academic circles. Like our Brother Genitivi, a Chantry scholar. But over time, with the new copies of the Chant of Light out, or more likely the words out of the mouths of those who'd sing that chant out loud to the general public would hide from those people the fact that, say, Shartan had anything to do with their independence movement. That he joined forces with Andraste and was instrumental in bringing down the power of the Imperium.

Let us look at one of those offending canticles (Canticle of Shartan):
At Shartan’s word, the sky
Grew black with arrows.
At Our Lady’s, ten thousand swords
Rang from their sheaths,
A great hymn rose over Valarian Fields gladly proclaiming:
Those who had been slaves were now free.

If I can read that at all, it merely talks about and acknowledges how a united force of elves and humans under the leadership of Shartan and Andraste brought about the freedom of slaves, elves and humans alike.

Now, one could argue the Chantry had some "noble" goal behind this or they discovered some sort of factual error, but I'm not buying it - not one bit. The Chantry has done this, it seems to me, at least in this case, to further its own ends - which does not look to me to be what Andraste had in mind.

If I should venture another guess, this edit would have been at the time when the war with Dales was afoot. Remove anything that would lend praise to the enemy or acknowledge their help in the past - military tactics.

I might be wrong of course, but, if so, I'll wait for such a time.

EDIT: Fixing formatting.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 17 août 2011 - 04:19 .

[Wulfram]

IanPolaris wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Not really, if I'm reading the right entry the two accounts don't so much conflict as reflect two different perspectives.

No.  The accounts are adjoint.  Both can not be true.  Both can be lies.  The perspectives are also different to be sure, but it's deeper than that.

I see no conflicts.  The Chantry account refers to an attack on Red Crossing which isn't mentioned in the Dalish, but fits the picture of rising tension.  Otherwise, they sync up extremely closely.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Not really, if I'm reading the right entry the two accounts don't so much conflict as reflect two different perspectives.

No.  The accounts are adjoint.  Both can not be true.  Both can be lies.  The perspectives are also different to be sure, but it's deeper than that.

I see no conflicts.  The Chantry account refers to an attack on Red Crossing which isn't mentioned in the Dalish, but fits the picture of rising tension.  Otherwise, they sync up extremely closely.

Basically the Chantry claims the Dalish did an unprovoked attack in Human territory while the Elves say that the Chantry initiated tensions in Elven territory by failing to honor Elven sovereignty.  I consider the two disjoint in that regard.  One of them is at fault.  Both could be.  In short someone is either lying or stretching the truth to the breaking point.  Given the past history of both peoples, my bet is on the Chantry/Orlais being the one to stretch the truth, but that's just me.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

Humans see it as an unprovoked attack, Dalish see it as a response to Chantry aggression. No lieing there, just different viewpoints.

Basic story is easy to see in both accounts - Dalish isolationism conflicts with Chantry evangelism, tensions increase, war begins.

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Basically the Chantry claims the Dalish did an unprovoked attack in Human territory while the Elves say that the Chantry initiated tensions in Elven territory by failing to honor Elven sovereignty.  I consider the two disjoint in that regard.  One of them is at fault.  Both could be.  In short someone is either lying or stretching the truth to the breaking point.  Given the past history of both peoples, my bet is on the Chantry/Orlais being the one to stretch the truth, but that's just me.

-Polaris

They didn't claim it was unprovoked, they claimed it was the reason for the march. The elves saw the tension as the reason for the war and thus comitted the attack which is used as the reason for the war from the other side. They don't necessarily contradict eachother.

And I think both stretch the truth. One doesn't mention what elves did wrong and the other doesn't mention what the humans did wrong.

[Wulfram]

The City Elven account says

But you already know that something went wrong. A small elven raiding party attacked the nearby human village of Red Crossing, an act of anger that prompted the Chantry to retaliate and, with their superior numbers, conquer the Dales.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

The City Elven account says

But you already know that something went wrong. A small elven raiding party attacked the nearby human village of Red Crossing, an act of anger that prompted the Chantry to retaliate and, with their superior numbers, conquer the Dales.

That's the account that all non-Dalish get.  It's the Chantry line.

-Polaris

[MichaelFinnegan]

Both accounts are here which I believe Wulfram posted earlier.

Dalish version:
But it was not to last. The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin. -- "The End of the Long Walk," as told by Gisharel, keeper of the Ralaferin clan of the Dalish elves

Chantry version:
But the old era wasn't through with them. In their forest city, the elves turned again to worship their silent, ancient gods. They became increasingly isolationist, posting Emerald Knights who guarded their borders with jealousy, rebuking all efforts at trade or civilized discourse. Dark rumors spread in the lands that bordered the Dales, whispers of humans captured and sacrificed to elven gods.

And then came an attack by the elves on the defenseless village of Red Crossing. The Chantry replied with the Exalted March of the Dales, and the era of the elven kingdom came to an end. Halamshiral was utterly destroyed, the elves driven out, scattered, left to survive on goodwill alone. -- From Ferelden: Folklore and History, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 17 août 2011 - 05:31 .

[IanPolaris]

I still consider these to be disjoint. I notice the Chantry is all but accusing the elves of human sacrifice which we've never seen any evidence of, and don't accept the Elve's right to their own sovereignty. Worse than that, they say the attack on Red Crossing was unprovoked, but never bother to say if Red Crossing was in Elven Lands or not (or if there weren't other attacks).

Reading the two, it sounds to me (and I'll admit I'm biased) like the Chantry is trying to rewrite a hsitory they are a bit ashamed of to make themselves seem morally better.

-Polaris