1194 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And to view Abominations as a natural disaster is not a good thing. The Abominations are viewed as natural disaster, because they feel like it is something inevitable and uncontrollable. The Andrastian nations knows this to be untrue, since they have foudnt eh means to prevent, and/or contain these so-called "natural disasters".

Except that they haven't.  They've contained some percentage of abominations.  They've created some percentage of abominations by driving mages to extreme actions.

They have also killed some unknown number of innocents in their zeal to contain abominations.  And kept thousands of other innocents imprisoned when they never would have caused anyone harm.

Treating a naturally occurring phenomenon like magic that goes bad as a natural disaster sounds exactly right to me.  I don't think the Chantry has any more right to lock up all mages than they do to forbid people to be fisherman due to the risk.

All the abominations and blood mages and chaos we've seen in the game happened after the Chantry had 900 years to "perfect" the circle system.  I think that's plenty of evidence that something better is needed.  And given that many of the problem have been caused by people who fear or hate the circle system, it seems that massive reform is needed. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

A fisherman doesn't endanger everyone around him, by virtue of being a fisherman....

And reform is needed yes. So lets go set of a chain of events that will only exacerbate things, and cause people to fear and hate mages even more, and which will only result in an even more oppresive system than before. Yay mages!

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Your first mistake is to assume that somehow what some random Dalish storyteller says equates to the entire Dalish people's sentiment on the matter.

You seem to be forgetting that the storytellers pass on Dalish history (as we see with the hahren Paivel). Don't you recall the Dalish Warden's Origin?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Your second mistake is that by doing so, you completely dismiss a statement from a Dalish Keeper, who all but admits that it was the Elves who attacked Red Crossing first, but that it was renegade Elves, and not the Dalish governemnt who orchestrated the attack.

Which doesn't change the fact that Dalish lore stipulates that the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries, and even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the Dales and Orlais prior to the attack on Red Crossing. There are two sides to this story, whether you want to admit it or not.

 
That "Dalish lore" you keep referring to, is the word of a single storyteller, within a single clan. Dalish clans varries greatly from eachother, and it seems, by all the Dalish accounts we have, that they havn't reached any form of consensus about what happened, at all. So there is no "Dalish claim", there is only different claims between people. I am leaning towards trusting the word of the Keeper more, since it seems to coincide quite well with what other sources claim. So the truth is somewhere between that. And very, very far away from the worhtless piece of trash, that is the Dalish codex entry on the Dales...

LobselVith8 wrote... 

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And to view Abominations as a natural disaster is not a good thing. The Abominations are viewed as natural disaster, because they feel like it is something inevitable and uncontrollable. The Andrastian nations knows this to be untrue, since they have foudnt eh means to prevent, and/or contain these so-called "natural disasters".

It means they don't villify every single mage in existance simply for the actions of a few, like the Andrastian nations who preach such intolerance against mages and magic that we end up with innocent mages getting killed by non-mages for natural disasters that happen (such as droughts or a baby dying), as Wynne openly admitted.

It means that they feel powerless to stop them. And you don't know wether or not any "innocent mages" gets killed by non-mages in those lands/groups. As a matter of fact, give the Chasind and Avvars general superstition I would wager that any mage, that isn't their Shaman, probably gets blamed for all that goes wrong to tehir clan/tribe. Same in Rivain, any mage that isn't a Seer is probably victim of such prejudices. However, the people feel that abominations are beyond their power to prevent. That line by Gaider says NOTHING about how those people see mages in general.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A fisherman doesn't endanger everyone around him, by virtue of being a fisherman....

And reform is needed yes. So lets go set of a chain of events that will only exacerbate things, and cause people to fear and hate mages even more, and which will only result in an even more oppresive system than before. Yay mages!

No, but a fisherman takes risks to do his job.  Obviously some risks are acceptable.  So, if people aren't willing to give up livelihoods for safety, why should they be able to take someone else's freedom for their own safety?

Yes, let's set off a revolution.  Because it might actually result in change.  Sometimes you have to demonlish the building before you can build something better in its place.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which doesn't change the fact that Dalish lore stipulates that the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries, and even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the Dales and Orlais prior to the attack on Red Crossing. There are two sides to this story, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

That "Dalish lore" you keep referring to, is the word of a single storyteller, within a single clan. Dalish clans varries greatly from eachother, and it seems, by all the Dalish accounts we have, that they havn't reached any form of consensus about what happened, at all. So there is no "Dalish claim", there is only different claims between people. I am leaning towards trusting the word of the Keeper more, since it seems to coincide quite well with what other sources claim. So the truth is somewhere between that. And very, very far away from the worhtless piece of trash, that is the Dalish codex entry on the Dales...

If the Dalish lore that was taught to the Dalish Warden is that the war with Orlais and the Chantry started because templars were sent into the Dales because the elves refused to convert, then there is a Dalish claim.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It means they don't villify every single mage in existance simply for the actions of a few, like the Andrastian nations who preach such intolerance against mages and magic that we end up with innocent mages getting killed by non-mages for natural disasters that happen (such as droughts or a baby dying), as Wynne openly admitted.

It means that they feel powerless to stop them. And you don't know wether or not any "innocent mages" gets killed by non-mages in those lands/groups.

Wynne is the character who addressed that innocent mages are often victims of persecution and murder for incidents that are outside their control, because of how villified magic and mages are in Andrastian nations.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

As a matter of fact, give the Chasind and Avvars general superstition I would wager that any mage, that isn't their Shaman, probably gets blamed for all that goes wrong to tehir clan/tribe.

Considering that the Chasind and the Avvar value magic, and even revere the story of Flemeth and the Witches of the Wild (who they believe taught the early shamans of their tribes), I respectfully disagree.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Same in Rivain, any mage that isn't a Seer is probably victim of such prejudices.

I believe the Chantry has forced mages into their Circle of Magi in Rivain, which seems to contrast with the free mages in the nation (the seers and the witches). There also seems to be a schism in the nation since the New Exalted Marches.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

However, the people feel that abominations are beyond their power to prevent. That line by Gaider says NOTHING about how those people see mages in general.

Aside from not condemning every single mage for the actions of a few, since mages aren't "controlled" in those societies.

[LolaLei]

I usually play as a mage in my games and I don't generally side with the Templars but I'd still let my PC romance Cullen, the mans a total beast! Plus it's forbidden fruit, who wouldn't want a piece of that!

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A fisherman doesn't endanger everyone around him, by virtue of being a fisherman....

And reform is needed yes. So lets go set of a chain of events that will only exacerbate things, and cause people to fear and hate mages even more, and which will only result in an even more oppresive system than before. Yay mages!

No, but a fisherman takes risks to do his job.  Obviously some risks are acceptable.  So, if people aren't willing to give up livelihoods for safety, why should they be able to take someone else's freedom for their own safety?

Yes, let's set off a revolution.  Because it might actually result in change.  Sometimes you have to demonlish the building before you can build something better in its place.

How on the sweet face of mother Earth does the job of a fisherman, comapre to the inherent dangers a mage pose to everyone around him? A fisherman is allowed to take that job because it is himself, and only himself he puts at risk. A mage is not allowed to walk around freely, because no matter where he walks, he will always put himself and everyone around him at risk.

The only result from this revolution will be more violence, and more hate. Yay mages!

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which doesn't change the fact that Dalish lore stipulates that the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries, and even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the Dales and Orlais prior to the attack on Red Crossing. There are two sides to this story, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

That "Dalish lore" you keep referring to, is the word of a single storyteller, within a single clan. Dalish clans varries greatly from eachother, and it seems, by all the Dalish accounts we have, that they havn't reached any form of consensus about what happened, at all. So there is no "Dalish claim", there is only different claims between people. I am leaning towards trusting the word of the Keeper more, since it seems to coincide quite well with what other sources claim. So the truth is somewhere between that. And very, very far away from the worhtless piece of trash, that is the Dalish codex entry on the Dales...

If the Dalish lore that was taught to the Dalish Warden is that the war with Orlais and the Chantry started because templars were sent into the Dales because the elves refused to convert, then there is a Dalish claim.

 
No. That is not "the Dalish claim". That is A (singular) Dalish's claim. The Dalish does not have any unified claim as to what happened. In fact, they evidently are quite divided on the subject. But, I am gonna go with the Keeper on this one, since it is her job to actually remember, instead of the storyteller, who just have to spin tales.

LobselVith8 wrote... 

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It means they don't villify every single mage in existance simply for the actions of a few, like the Andrastian nations who preach such intolerance against mages and magic that we end up with innocent mages getting killed by non-mages for natural disasters that happen (such as droughts or a baby dying), as Wynne openly admitted.

It means that they feel powerless to stop them. And you don't know wether or not any "innocent mages" gets killed by non-mages in those lands/groups.

Wynne is the character who addressed that innocent mages are often victims of persecution and murder for incidents that are outside their control, because of how villified magic and mages are in Andrastian nations.

 
What does it matter that Wynne tells us that non-mages have a habit of blaming mageblood children? As you even say yourself, she only offers a view of Andrastian nations, she doesn't explain how it is different anywhere else. I am saying, that it most like isn't different anywhere else, except maybe Tevinter. Though even there, regular mages probably aren't seen in the best of lights.

LobselVith8 wrote... 

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

As a matter of fact, give the Chasind and Avvars general superstition I would wager that any mage, that isn't their Shaman, probably gets blamed for all that goes wrong to tehir clan/tribe.

Considering that the Chasind and the Avvar value magic, and even revere the story of Flemeth and the Witches of the Wild (who they believe taught the early shamans of their tribes), I respectfully disagree.

The Chasind live in eternal terror of Flemeth. They revere her, befcause they fear her. Same as their Shamans really. Especially since the Chasind have developed techniques to break mages specifically, seams to be proof that they have certain prohibitations towards magic.

LobselVith8 wrote... 

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

However, the people feel that abominations are beyond their power to prevent. That line by Gaider says NOTHING about how those people see mages in general.

Aside from not condemning every single mage for the actions of a few, since mages aren't "controlled" in those societies.

Which wasn't what Gaider said at all. All Gaider said that the people of these groups/countries, view Abominations as inevitable as a flood or hurricane. That was it. You are just deducing what you want to hear, from what he was actually saying.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 03 avril 2012 - 05:40 .

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Your second mistake is that by doing so, you completely dismiss a statement from a Dalish Keeper, who all but admits that it was the Elves who attacked Red Crossing first, but that it was renegade Elves, and not the Dalish governemnt who orchestrated the attack.

Which doesn't change the fact that Dalish lore stipulates that the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries, and even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the Dales and Orlais prior to the attack on Red Crossing. There are two sides to this story, whether you want to admit it or not.

No. You aren't reading it correctly, or you made some huge mistake in your attempt to combine the Dalish accounts. I don't know where exactly your line of reasoning went wrong, but I'll point it out once more:

Nowhere in the Dalish accounts does it say war broke out because the Chantry sent templars. Nowhere. This is something you keep making up.

The Dalish accounts state that at some point in time the templars participated in the razing of their city, which coincides with the Orlesian accounts of an Exalted March.

The hostilities you are referring to are border skirmishes, which means no invasion into either nation, suggesting that said hostilities were limited to patrols from both sides or at best travellers caught too close to the border or accidentally straying into the other's territory.

So actually, there is no conflict and no contradiction, just a change in focus slightly twisting the reader's perception. This does not change that there is nothing in the Dalish or the Orlesian accounts claiming that Red Crossing was not the decisive event for kicking off the war. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Garnichts.
On the other hand, we have accounts of both Dalish and Orlesian historians clearly admitting to it.

If you still believe that the templars showed up prior to Red Crossing, provide a quote. I'll be waiting, though I do not think that you'll find something.

[DKJaigen]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Your second mistake is that by doing so, you completely dismiss a statement from a Dalish Keeper, who all but admits that it was the Elves who attacked Red Crossing first, but that it was renegade Elves, and not the Dalish governemnt who orchestrated the attack.

Which doesn't change the fact that Dalish lore stipulates that the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries, and even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the Dales and Orlais prior to the attack on Red Crossing. There are two sides to this story, whether you want to admit it or not.

No. You aren't reading it correctly, or you made some huge mistake in your attempt to combine the Dalish accounts. I don't know where exactly your line of reasoning went wrong, but I'll point it out once more:

Nowhere in the Dalish accounts does it say war broke out because the Chantry sent templars. Nowhere. This is something you keep making up.

The Dalish accounts state that at some point in time the templars participated in the razing of their city, which coincides with the Orlesian accounts of an Exalted March.

The hostilities you are referring to are border skirmishes, which means no invasion into either nation, suggesting that said hostilities were limited to patrols from both sides or at best travellers caught too close to the border or accidentally straying into the other's territory.

So actually, there is no conflict and no contradiction, just a change in focus slightly twisting the reader's perception. This does not change that there is nothing in the Dalish or the Orlesian accounts claiming that Red Crossing was not the decisive event for kicking off the war. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Garnichts.
On the other hand, we have accounts of both Dalish and Orlesian historians clearly admitting to it.

If you still believe that the templars showed up prior to Red Crossing, provide a quote. I'll be waiting, though I do not think that you'll find something.

Whatever the case i do not doubt for a moment that Orlais or the Chantry is to blame for this war. The elves had nor reason to invade Orlais. Orlais and the chantry on the other hand have plenty of reason

[Lynata]

DKJaigen wrote...
Whatever the case i do not doubt for a moment that Orlais or the Chantry is to blame for this war. The elves had nor reason to invade Orlais. Orlais and the chantry on the other hand have plenty of reason

Well, by this logic the elves also had no reason to massacre the people of Red Crossing.

Regardless - why does simply having a reason to go to war automatically put the blame on said party? Shouldn't it be the reasons themselves which determine this?

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the Dalish lore that was taught to the Dalish Warden is that the war with Orlais and the Chantry started because templars were sent into the Dales because the elves refused to convert, then there is a Dalish claim.

No. That is not "the Dalish claim". That is A (singular) Dalish's claim. The Dalish does not have any unified claim as to what happened. In fact, they evidently are quite divided on the subject. But, I am gonna go with the Keeper on this one, since it is her job to actually remember, instead of the storyteller, who just have to spin tales.

The Keeper never dismisses the claim that the Chantry sent in missionaries, and then templars, into the Dales. None of the Dalish dismiss the lore from the Dalish Warden about the fall of the Dales. It's listed as the codex entry, and serves as the basis for what is the school of thought for the Dalish Warden and his or her people in terms of why the Dales fell. I don't see why you are so persistent in dismissing the fact that there's more than one side to the story simply because the Dalish place blame on the Chantry and the templars for the war.

Also, it's the storytellers who serve as the historians of Dalish history, and teach it to the younger generation. It's literally their job to remember.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wynne is the character who addressed that innocent mages are often victims of persecution and murder for incidents that are outside their control, because of how villified magic and mages are in Andrastian nations.

What does it matter that Wynne tells us that non-mages have a habit of blaming mageblood children? As you even say yourself, she only offers a view of Andrastian nations, she doesn't explain how it is different anywhere else. I am saying, that it most like isn't different anywhere else, except maybe Tevinter. Though even there, regular mages probably aren't seen in the best of lights.

If Andrastians are taught that magic is a curse and view mages negatively, of course it's going to be different than societies where people aren't taught to hate mages and view magic with disdain.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering that the Chasind and the Avvar value magic, and even revere the story of Flemeth and the Witches of the Wild (who they believe taught the early shamans of their tribes), I respectfully disagree.

The Chasind live in eternal terror of Flemeth. They revere her, befcause they fear her. Same as their Shamans really. Especially since the Chasind have developed techniques to break mages specifically, seams to be proof that they have certain prohibitations towards magic.

You seem to paint it one way, and that isn't the case. According to the codex on the Chasind, "There are many tales of these shamans having learned their magic from the 'Witches of the Wilds,' witches that inspire as much terror as they do awe and gratitude even if there is no definitive proof they exist. In particular, the tale of Flemeth, the greatest witch of the wilds, is celebrated amongst all tribes."

Terror, awe, and gratitude is what the Witches of the Wild invoke from the Chasind Wilders, and the story of Flemeth is celebrated, where she is seen as the greatest of the Witches of the Wild. It's not as one-note as you tried to make it out to be. Also, Gaider already addressed that mages "aren't controlled" among the Chasind. Shamans govern the Chasind and the Avvar. I don't see why you are trying to make it sound like all societies emulate the model held by the Andrastians, when that isn't the case.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aside from not condemning every single mage for the actions of a few, since mages aren't "controlled" in those societies.

Which wasn't what Gaider said at all. All Gaider said that the people of these groups/countries, view Abominations as inevitable as a flood or hurricane. That was it. You are just deducing what you want to hear, from what he was actually saying.

We see from the narrative of Origins and Dragon Age II that mages are blamed for the actions of a few, where a myraid of characters claim that mages are "cursed" and view them with open disdain. We see exactly what Andrastian society is like, and see how characters like Keili and Bethany deal with the depression of being a mage in a society that openly preaches intolerance against them.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
How on the sweet face of mother Earth does the job of a fisherman, comapre to the inherent dangers a mage pose to everyone around him? A fisherman is allowed to take that job because it is himself, and only himself he puts at risk. A mage is not allowed to walk around freely, because no matter where he walks, he will always put himself and everyone around him at risk.

The only result from this revolution will be more violence, and more hate. Yay mages!

Thanks for repeatedly missing my point.

My point is that life is risky.  People willingly take all kinds of risks.  They do it to earn a living or even just because they're bored.  People live in places that are dangerous, have occupations that are dangerous, deal with people who are dangerous etc.

So, why should people who are willing to accept all kinds of other risks think they are entitled to refuse to take the risk of living side by side with trained mages?  Why should a fisherman, who risks his life every day by going out on the ocean, think that locking up thousands of innocent mages in some vain effort to elminate the small extra risk of an abomination is OK?

The possibility of a trained mage becoming an abomination while walking down the street to get a sandwich appears to be vanishingly small.  Mages who are locked up and treated as criminals, or go untrained because their families are afraid to lose them are much more likely to become abominations.  Thus, the circle system makes the problem worse, not better.  And it promotes fear and hatred of a resource that could otherwise be a valuable addition to society.

As far as the revolution goes...  even the Divine couldn't make any progress changing the system peacefully.  Rather than mellow their hatred and distrust, the Templars left the Chantry.  So, it appears violent revolution is necessary to correct a 900 year long injustice.

[Dave of Canada]

The fisherman trips over his boat, he drowns.
The alchemist screws up his chemicals, they explode and he dies.
The baker's pie catches fire, she's burned to death.
The mage gets possessed OR angry, villages are burned down.

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which doesn't change the fact that Dalish lore stipulates that the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries, and even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the Dales and Orlais prior to the attack on Red Crossing. There are two sides to this story, whether you want to admit it or not.

No. You aren't reading it correctly, or you made some huge mistake in your attempt to combine the Dalish accounts. I don't know where exactly your line of reasoning went wrong, but I'll point it out once more:

Nowhere in the Dalish accounts does it say war broke out because the Chantry sent templars. Nowhere. This is something you keep making up.

The Dalish codex addresses that the fall of the Dales transpired because the Chantry sent in missionaries, who were kicked out, and then the templars. The Dalish codex for the Dalish Warden addresses this as the inception for the fall of the Dales, so I don't see the need for the pro-templar fans to act as though only the Chantry version of events is the only one out there. It's not. That doesn't mean anyone knows the truth about what actually happened, but there's more than one side to the story here.

Lynata wrote...

The Dalish accounts state that at some point in time the templars participated in the razing of their city, which coincides with the Orlesian accounts of an Exalted March.

Actually, the entry reads: "The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars." It doesn't read that templars eventually came to the Dales, it reads that templars entered the Dales as a direct result of the elves kicking out the missionaries. The Dalish account addresses that templars were sent in after the missionaries were kicked out of their nation, which is the entire premise behind the Dalish account for the fall of the Dales. According to the Dalish account, the elves made it clear that they weren't going to convert was met with the Chantry sending in armed and armored soldiers; this is the message that comes across from the Dalish Warden codex on the fall of the second elven homeland.

Lynata wrote...

The hostilities you are referring to are border skirmishes, which means no invasion into either nation, suggesting that said hostilities were limited to patrols from both sides or at best travellers caught too close to the border or accidentally straying into the other's territory.

That transpired as a result of increasing hostility. I'd assume that templars entering sovereign soil would constitute that, if the Dalish account is accurate.

Lynata wrote...

So actually, there is no conflict and no contradiction, just a change in focus slightly twisting the reader's perception. This does not change that there is nothing in the Dalish or the Orlesian accounts claiming that Red Crossing was not the decisive event for kicking off the war. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Garnichts.

Except that the entire premise behind the Dalish version of the fall of the Dales is that they lost their second homeland as a result of their refusal to convert to the Chant, while the Orlesian version claims they practiced human sacrifices and attacked Red Crossing unprovoked. Both the Dalish account and the Orlesian account are sparse, and strictly deal with what each side claims started the war.

Lynata wrote...

On the other hand, we have accounts of both Dalish and Orlesian historians clearly admitting to it.

If you still believe that the templars showed up prior to Red Crossing, provide a quote. I'll be waiting, though I do not think that you'll find something.

The Dalish codex already addresses what the elves claim was the cause of the war, which is that templars entered the Dales as a result of the missionaries being kicked out.

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
How on the sweet face of mother Earth does the job of a fisherman, comapre to the inherent dangers a mage pose to everyone around him? A fisherman is allowed to take that job because it is himself, and only himself he puts at risk. A mage is not allowed to walk around freely, because no matter where he walks, he will always put himself and everyone around him at risk.

The only result from this revolution will be more violence, and more hate. Yay mages!

Thanks for repeatedly missing my point.

My point is that life is risky.  People willingly take all kinds of risks.  They do it to earn a living or even just because they're bored.  People live in places that are dangerous, have occupations that are dangerous, deal with people who are dangerous etc.

So, why should people who are willing to accept all kinds of other risks think they are entitled to refuse to take the risk of living side by side with trained mages?  Why should a fisherman, who risks his life every day by going out on the ocean, think that locking up thousands of innocent mages in some vain effort to elminate the small extra risk of an abomination is OK?

The possibility of a trained mage becoming an abomination while walking down the street to get a sandwich appears to be vanishingly small.  Mages who are locked up and treated as criminals, or go untrained because their families are afraid to lose them are much more likely to become abominations.  Thus, the circle system makes the problem worse, not better.  And it promotes fear and hatred of a resource that could otherwise be a valuable addition to society.

As far as the revolution goes...  even the Divine couldn't make any progress changing the system peacefully.  Rather than mellow their hatred and distrust, the Templars left the Chantry.  So, it appears violent revolution is necessary to correct a 900 year long injustice.

They are entitled to take such risks because it is themselves they put at risk. Mages cannot help but put all around them at risk. If you had a point, you were making a ****** poor effort at making it with your fisherman/mage simily. The fisherman would be fine with the mages being locked up, because if they weren't, they would lessen his chances of survival, through no decision of his own.
The Circle system has been in function for 900 years (almost anyway), and has been remarkably effective at containing all magical threats. I am certainly willing to bet, that it has averted many many more than have been created. Contrary to what mage-apologists would have people believe.

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Dalish codex addresses that the fall of the Dales transpired because the Chantry sent in missionaries, who were kicked out, and then the templars. The Dalish codex for the Dalish Warden addresses this as the inception for the fall of the Dales, so I don't see the need for the pro-templar fans to act as though only the Chantry version of events is the only one out there. It's not.

You're acting as if there were actually two different versions of history out there.

This is not the case. The historical accounts complement each other. There is no contradiction. And I don't see the need for pro-mage fans to artificially create one.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Actually, the entry reads: "The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars." It doesn't read that templars eventually came to the Dales, it reads that templars entered the Dales as a direct result of the elves kicking out the missionaries.

Actually, the full paragraph reads: "The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered."

This very much makes it sound as if it was the templars which have driven them from Halamshiral, no? And given that historical accounts talk of a full-scale war lasting for several months before this happened, it just seems somewhat hard to believe that the templars would have just set up camp there to wait out the war if they've been there all the time as you suggest.
Yet this account you're clinging to doesn't deal with the war. At all. It deals with the elves being driven from their newfound homeland, which is a related yet different topic.

To clarify, it basically reads:
"The humans sent missionaries but we kicked them out. Then the humans sent templars. Then we were homeless and nobody likes us."

Don't you think there's something missing there?

This account omits that Red Crossing happened in-between the missionaries and the displacement, the latter of which involving an Exalted March and thus the templars. It's not a lie, just a different focus resulting in a different perception of anyone reading it, placing the blame entirely on the Chantry.

Modifié par Lynata, 03 avril 2012 - 08:22 .

[dragonflight288]

Actually, the full paragraph reads: "The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered."

This very much makes it sound as if it was the templars which have driven them from Halamshiral, no? And given that historical accounts talk of a full-scale war lasting for several months before this happened, it just seems somewhat hard to believe that the templars would have just set up camp there to wait out the war if they've been there all the time as you suggest.
Yet this account you're clinging to doesn't deal with the war. At all. It deals with the elves being driven from their newfound homeland, which is a related yet different topic.

To clarify, it basically reads:
"The humans sent missionaries but we kicked them out. Then the humans sent templars. Then we were homeless and nobody likes us."

Don't you think there's something missing there?

This account omits that Red Crossing happened in-between the missionaries and the displacement, the latter of which involving an Exalted March and thus the templars. It's not a lie, just a different focus resulting in a different perception of anyone reading it, placing the blame entirely on the Chantry.

True. Like I've said in the past, both sides have faults and dirty laundry. Considering the Dalish largely rely on the oral tradition through their story tellers, it is easy to see why they may have forgotten a lot of other details, or certain Dalish omitted details that paint them in a negative light.

Every culture does that. Even in real life. History is often written by the victors, but even the losers can write their own history, and can make it sound like a huge injustice like the victors can say their own crimes were fully justified.

Usually it requires omission of details, and both sides stories are full of holes. But added together, make up a more complete picture.

[Urzon]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The fisherman trips over his boat, he drowns.
The alchemist screws up his chemicals, they explode and he dies.
The baker's pie catches fire, she's burned to death.
The mage gets possessed OR angry, villages are burned down.

The fisherman sells some old fish. He accidently poisons the village.
The alchemist screws up his chemicals, they explode and cause a fire. The village burns.
The baker uses some moldy rye to make bread. It poisons the villagers causing gangrene in in the limbs, as well as: hallucination, convulsions, and even death.
The farmer leaves a lit candle in the barn. A cow knocks it over, and a whole city burns.
The king decides that he wants the land next to his, and the land next to that one as well. He sents his soliders to conquer them. They kill all the men that don't kneel, rapes the women, and then sell them and the children in slavery. Whole kingdoms burns.
The mage gets possessed or angry, villages are burned down.

Modifié par Urzon, 04 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[DKJaigen]

Lynata wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...
Whatever the case i do not doubt for a moment that Orlais or the Chantry is to blame for this war. The elves had nor reason to invade Orlais. Orlais and the chantry on the other hand have plenty of reason

Well, by this logic the elves also had no reason to massacre the people of Red Crossing.

Regardless - why does simply having a reason to go to war automatically put the blame on said party? Shouldn't it be the reasons themselves which determine this?

Red crossing is insignificant, a tibid of information that does not explain that war at all. So if lack information we look at the motives of the factions. The elves generally didnt want any contact with the humans .The chantry wants to spread the chant of light sometimes by any means necessary and Orlais is always looking for a quick landgrab.

So i say this: if the chantry or Orlais is not responsible for this war i will eat my boxershort with pepper and salt.

[Chibi Elemental]

 I usually played as a moderate in dragon age 2 lots of fun actually as a hypocritical mage. who would support the templars on one hand yet let those who were not to far gone do thier own things. Was also fun to watch fenris go RAWR MAGES! GRR... sorry hun >.>

[Lynata]

DKJaigen wrote...
Red crossing is insignificant, a tibid of information that does not explain that war at all.

"Insignificant"?

Chantry records outright cite this as the primary reason for the war, so at least the side suffering the attack obviously did not feel it was "insignificant".

What is true is that Red Crossing was just one of many reasons (the others being religious differences and rising tensions at the border), but it was the one straw that broke the camel's back: A band of "elven heretics" invading a town full of humans faithful to the Maker and massacring its population. I would not call this insignificant at all!

You may argue that trying to convert the elves in the first place was wrong. You may also argue that Red Crossing was the perfect excuse to go to war - but in the end, does the latter surprise anyone? The elves wouldn't have acted differently and you know it. You wouldn't have acted differently as a human living in Thedas. Hell, modern day nations wouldn't have acted differently. 9/11 anyone?

People need to stop thinking Dragon Age elves are the nice and innocent LotR kind of elves. In this setting, everyone makes mistakes, and this includes the Dalish who are unable to keep their own people from giving the humans a reason for war by murdering innocent villagers.

Modifié par Lynata, 04 avril 2012 - 12:58 .

[DKJaigen]

Lynata wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...
Red crossing is insignificant, a tibid of information that does not explain that war at all.

"Insignificant"?

Chantry records outright cite this as the primary reason for the war, so at least the side suffering the attack obviously did not feel it was "insignificant".

What is true is that Red Crossing was just one of many reasons (the others being religious differences and rising tensions at the border), but it was the one straw that broke the camel's back: A band of "elven heretics" invading a town full of humans faithful to the Maker and massacring its population. I would not call this insignificant at all!

You may argue that trying to convert the elves in the first place was wrong. You may also argue that Red Crossing was the perfect excuse to go to war - but in the end, does the latter surprise anyone? The elves wouldn't have acted differently and you know it. You wouldn't have acted differently as a human living in Thedas. Hell, modern day nations wouldn't have acted differently. 9/11 anyone?

People need to stop thinking Dragon Age elves are the nice and innocent LotR kind of elves. In this setting, everyone makes mistakes, and this includes the Dalish who are unable to keep their own people from giving the humans a reason for war by murdering innocent villagers.

Thats what i find annoying about you. You use one tiny bit of information and make complex theories around it. But the thruth is you now nothing and neither do i because we dont have the information.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 04 avril 2012 - 01:07 .

[dragonflight288]

People need to stop thinking Dragon Age elves are the nice and innocent LotR kind of elves. In this setting, everyone makes mistakes, and this includes the Dalish who are unable to keep their own people from giving the humans a reason for war by murdering innocent villagers.

As can also be made very clear in Origins, the Dalish Origin starts out with the Dalish Warden potentially killing humans for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And Zathrian's righteous anger against the werewolves...for a crime none of them committed centuries earlier.

[tankdogg937]

The better question is how can you support mages by the end of the game???

Let's reflect shall we...(Some of this depends on your character build IE who survives at the beginning and the outcome of expedition)

1. You have a mage sister and always have to protect/hide her from Templars. Essentially your entire life has been altered by her.

2. You lose your sister either by death, to the Wardens, or to the Circle. If she weren't a mage she could of stayed home without fear of being apprehended.

3. Horrific number of blood mages throughout the game. Even the decent ones have blood magic capabilities.

4. Mage kills your mother and Orsino knew the whole time what the nutjob was up to with his research. Never did anything to stop it.

5. Mages and sympathizers kidnap your siblings/friends. Thrask and company ceased to be Templars when they aided the mages. So they don't count.

6. In total you end up fighting way more mages/abominations/demons than you do Templars.


Spare me the "but but there are some mages who have done nothing wrong, kids, etc. etc." If it looks like a duck, walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, it is in fact a mentally unstable killing machine. One Templar can't destroy an entire city block. All it takes is one mage to level a solid stone Chantry. Mages remind me of a kid being bullied at school. Bullying isn't right at all but it's also not right to bring a gun to school and mow down as many people as possible regardless of their innocence.