1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Lynata]

DKJaigen wrote...
Thats what i find annoying about you. You use one tiny bit of information and make complex theories around it.

Ah, come on. Everyone debating in these threads does this - it's half the fun and half the annoyance at the same time.
And what "tiny bits of information" did you use to come to your conclusion that it's the Chantry/Orlais that has to be blamed for the war, mhm?

Don't blame me for sticking to what it actually says in the games.

tankdogg937 wrote...
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.

To be fair, nobody can be held responsible for her being a mage, and it isn't your sister's fault that society treats mages the way it does. Given how well she fared outside a Circle, I'd even say that if more mages would've been like her, things would be different. Alas, few people outside the Dalish clans can resist hubris and the lure of power.

My Hawke's sister being a mage actually would've been my in-character reason to side with mages, simply to protect her as an individual and disregarding the wider picture. In my playthrough, however, she died during the expedition into the Deep Roads; I never even knew the templars would take her away some day until I've read that later on. Who knows how my character would have reacted to this...

The other points you raised are very much valid, though, at least in my opinion.

On a sidenote, I have to say that my Hawke's family slowly dying around her was pulled off in an incredibly amazing way - dramatic, but not cheesy. Just the right amount of despair. Boy, facing mother after the Deep Roads was hard. And then mum died as well...
Hawke being all alone in her big house, pondering in front of the chimney fire and then remembering her family ... one of the best scenes of the entire franchise, really had me moved. As much as I've been criticizing DA2, this was one event where I loved it.

Modifié par Lynata, 04 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

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.

There are two different versions - the Orlesian version, which is provided for virtually all the Wardens except the Dalish Warden, and the Dalish version, that is provided for the Dalish protagonist. The Orlesian version paints the elves as the transgressors, and the Dalish version paints the Orlesians and the Chantry as the ones responsible for the fall of the Dales. This isn't a debate about which one is more accurate than the other, this is a discussion pointing out that two different codex entries address different reasons for the fall of the Dales.

Also, how is it artifically created when the Dalish Warden's codex entry about the fall of the Dales addresses the templars entering the Dales as a result of the elves refusal to convert to the Andrastian Chantry and kicking out the missionaries as the reason for the fall of the Dales? It seems like the pro-templar fans are simply arguing that the only version out there is the Orlesian version: the one that paints the Orlesians and the Chantry as the victims of human sacrificing elves who sacked Red Crossing for no reason, but the problem is the Dalish Warden's codex entry about the fall of the Dales already addresses that there's another version out there.

Lynata wrote...

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.

You can make the exact same criticism about the Orlesian version:

"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."

Are you going to argue that the Orlesian version can't possibly be true because it's sparse as well?

Lynata wrote...

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.

The Orlesian and Dalish codex entries deal with the fall of the Dales. Both are sparse. While you dismiss the Dalish codex for being sparse, you don't seem to do the same for the Orlesian version. The only difference being that the Orlesian version paints the Orlesians and the Chantry as the victims of violent elves.

Lynata wrote...

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?

The Orlesian version is also sparse, and doesn't go into full detail, either. I don't see how you can dismiss the Dalish version for being sparse, but not the Orlesian version when it's as equally sparse as the Dalish Warden's codex about this aspect of their history. The Dalish codex addresses that their history reads: "The Andrastian Chantry tried to convert the elves of the Dales, the elves kicked out the missionaries, and then the Chantry send in templars into sovereign territory. It lead to the war between Orlais and the Dales, but the elves ultimately lost."

Lynata wrote...

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.

The Dalish account omits it because, according to their history, Red Crossing didn't ignite the war between Orlais and the Dales; the elves' refusal to convert to the Andrastian Chantry did. Given the history of conquest that marks Orlais and the Chantry, I don't see why you are so eager to dismiss the Dalish codex as a possibility - from its inception as a city-state under the rule of Drakon I, to the Orlesian Empire conquering Nevarra after the Third Blight (when Orlais had "helped" Nevarra defend itself against the darkspawn forces, which seems to be the same fear Loghain had about having Orlesian troops on Ferelden soil centuries later) and the occupation of Ferelden that was fully supported by the Chantry, which transpired mere decades prior to the events in Origins.

Both versions have the historians place the blame on the war on the other side; I'm simply acknowledging that both versions exist, while the pro-Chantry fans seem eager to argue that only the historial account that benefits their favored faction is the only valid one out there.

[LobselVith8]

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!

I think DKJaigen's point is that, given the history that Orlais and the Chantry of Andraste have in conquering other nations by force, perhaps the Orlesian version isn't entirely honest and forthright about the reason behind the war between the Dales and Orlais (and the Chantry of Andraste). It's merely a matter of opinion that some people have because of how Orlais has conquered nations since it's inception as a city-state, and centuries later during the attempts to conquer Ferelden (that still continue into Dragon Age II, as is noted in "King Alistair").

Lynata wrote...

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?

The problem comes from the fact that the Dalish elves claim that their war with the humans started for entirely different reasons: namely, their refusal to convert to the Chantry of Andraste, which doesn't seem surprising when one considers that the Chantry had outlawed the elven religion after their victory against the Dales, and forced the elves who they placed in Alienages (ghettos) to convert to the Andrastian Chantry.

There are two versions to this story, and the Orlesian version is simply one of them.

Lynata wrote...

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.

People aren't arguing that at all. So far, you've claimed that I'm pushing some pro-mage agenda simply because I pointed out that the Dalish codex entry addresses another account for the reason behind the war between the Dales and Orlais, even though I never claimed one was more accurate than the other. I simply pointed out that there's another version to the story about the fall of the Dales. If people are disinclined to believe that Orlais and the Chantry are victims in the Exalted March of the Dales because of their history of taking over other nations, it's their right to have that opinion.

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
There are two different versions - the Orlesian version, which is provided for virtually all the Wardens except the Dalish Warden, and the Dalish version, that is provided for the Dalish protagonist. The Orlesian version paints the elves as the transgressors, and the Dalish version paints the Orlesians and the Chantry as the ones responsible for the fall of the Dales.

No, there are no two different versions. It's two sides of the same coin. They are not mutually exclusive - because both sides share a portion of the blame, yet neither wants to admit it. Hence me saying all along that the full truth lies in the middle, which you will get when you simply combine both accounts, as I have done.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Also, how is it artifically created when the Dalish Warden's codex entry about the fall of the Dales addresses the templars entering the Dales as a result of the elves refusal to convert to the Andrastian Chantry and kicking out the missionaries as the reason for the fall of the Dales?

Because it doesn't. This is something you keep making up to support your argument.

The article you are referring to does not talk about the reason for the templars presence at all. Fact. It says they showed up sometime after they kicked out the missionaries. It does not claim a reason for their presence. You are allowing yourself to get manipulated by the way the text was (intentionally) worded when it tells of their appearance right after it tells of the missionaries.

You are artificially creating a contradiction when you conjure a reason compatible with your personal opinion out of thin air, when we already have a historical account providing one. As long as no Dalish account contradicts it, I see no reason to distrust the Orlesian tale. Just like I have no reason to distrust the Dalish tale as long as there are no contradictions from the Orlesian side.

And said contradictions do not exist. Both tales simply omit details to sway the reader's focus, but neither tells a lie.

And Red Crossing is referenced as a reason for the war in elven tales as well, in case you have forgotten.

LobselVith8 wrote...
It seems like the pro-templar fans are simply arguing that the only version out there is the Orlesian version: the one that paints the Orlesians and the Chantry as the victims of human sacrificing elves who sacked Red Crossing for no reason, but the problem is the Dalish Warden's codex entry about the fall of the Dales already addresses that there's another version out there.

Nope. As I said, there is no contradiction, so why should any of us favor an Orlesian version of history when they are not mutually exclusive but can be combined seamlessly?

It just seems as if you, the pro-mage fan, want to create one in order to paint the Chantry in a bad light.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Are you going to argue that the Orlesian version can't possibly be true because it's sparse as well?

Are my posts really this hard to understand?

Let me use bold text as well, if you are so convinced this will help:

They are both true. There is no contradiction. Neither the Elves nor the Orlesians are lying.

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Orlesian and Dalish codex entries deal with the fall of the Dales. Both are sparse. While you dismiss the Dalish codex for being sparse, you don't seem to do the same for the Orlesian version.

I do not dismiss anything. Stop claiming I do.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Both versions have the historians place the blame on the war on the other side; I'm simply acknowledging that both versions exist, while the pro-Chantry fans seem eager to argue that only the historial account that benefits their favored faction is the only valid one out there.

No, this is not how it looks like to me at all. Neither the Dalish nor the Orlesian accounts of history should be regarded as the only truth. The valid history is, as far as I can see, the combination of the two - which coincides with what the Elders of the City Elves tell their people.

What you attempt is to make it look as if these historical accounts are not compatible (when they perfectly are) and thus cast the Chantry's version into doubt, when not even the Dalish claim it is untrue. Which I do believe stems from your scepticism regarding the Chantry in general.

[LobselVith8]

tankdogg937 wrote...

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

If you want the answer from my Antivan (Latino) Hawke: because my apostate Champion of Kirkwall thought that hundreds of men, women, and children (who he has never met) are going to be executed for an act that none of them are responsible for. And he was going to fight against the Right of Annulment for that specific reason.

tankdogg937 wrote...

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.

Isn't Bethany an example of an exceptinally good mage, in addition to being raised and trained as an apostate by her apostate father, Malcolm Hawke?

tankdogg937 wrote...

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.

Cullen taking Bethany into the Circle of Kirkwall, where mages are being abused and made tranquil illegally, isn't exactly an argument in favor of the templar side (in my humble opinion). Had Hawke acted like a real human being, he would have tried to stop Cullen - by any means necessary. Even if it meant Cullen's death. I tried out the rogue Hawke, and stopped when I saw Hawke standing idly by like some inanimate object. A real person wouldn't have done that; that scene was completely, and utterly, ridiculous.

tankdogg937 wrote...

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

All the mage antagonists are insane and stupid, and virtually all the templar antagonists are sadists, with two of them being rapists. Your point is what, exactly? That the game developers simply made both factions out to be one-note villians, with the bare minimum of characterization? That there's no genuine debate over mages and templars in both sides are written to be little more than cartoon villains?

If you're looking for a decent game where the factions are actually given characterization, and the leaders have depth to them, I'd recommend Witcher 2 and Skyrim.

As for being a blood mage, Duncan noted in the Magi Origin that some Grey Warden mages turn to blood magic to give them an edge against the darkspawn. The Joining can be viewed as blood magic. Gaider addressed at PAX that the phylacteries can be viewed as blood magic. The lore about Kirkwall reads that some argue that good mages are turning to blood magic in order to protect them against the templars. Merrill, in particular, never abuses her blood magic abilities, and neither does an apostate Hawke who uses blood magic (where we see him explicitly use blood magic to take down the High Dragon who killed everyone at the Bone Pit).

tankdogg937 wrote...

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.

Quentin might be from the Circle of Starkhaven (based on Gascard's note), and Orsino's dealings with him make him look like an inept fool, because the research was both ludicrious and ridiculously stupid. That said, the actions of two men aren't going to convince me to help murder hundreds of people who are innocent of Anders' actions. It's not going to convince me that the Chantry controlled Circles are the correct method when we see how monstrous the templars can be, given their "divine right" over mages (to quote Cullen), and how bad the situation can get when mages have no basic rights, especially under a religious order that preaches that mages are "cursed."

tankdogg937 wrote...

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.

You realize Meredith has a death squad of templars murdering people in Act III... right? A pro-mage Hawke encounters them when the Champion tries to stop them from murdering a woman who fed her tortured and starving mage cousin.

Also, Ser Thrask was one of the few decent and intelligent templars in the entire narrative. He's a good man. He reminded me of the plethora of good templars in Origins: Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, Ser Otto, and (I would argue) even the Knight-Commander Greagoir. I wish he was given more of a role in Dragon Age II. I cetainly liked him more than Cullen, who had thought that mages "can't be treated like people. They aren't like you and me. They are weapons." Not to mention how the Knight-Captain takes Bethany away.

I hate how Thrask was killed. He's someone who I would have liked to see integrated more into the storyline. He was a good man who was killed because the developers didn't realize that his idea about mages and templars working together was revolutionary and interesting, and decided to instead to railroad our protagonists by having Grace as another insane and stupid mage antagonist who does something that makes little to no sense.

tankdogg937 wrote...

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

Mages become abominations in Dragon Age II in ways that specifically contradict the actual lore about mages. Mages can't turn into abominations without a demon, and we see mages continually turn into abominations without even entering the Fade to make a deal with a demon; as we see in Origins and read from the lore (including Aeonar), mages aren't conscious in the real world when they enter the Fade. Simply look at the mages at Ostagar to see what I mean. In fact, we even see abominations rise up from the ground, as though they were summoned creatures, rather than possessed mages. The developers have explicitly said this is simply game mechanics.

tankdogg937 wrote...

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.

Like the templars who wanted to kill the runaway mages, you mean? Or the templars who tortured a da'len (child) for information about Feynriel? What about the templars who torture mages for speaking to civilians, or the proprietor who is beaten if someone steals from her? What about the sounds of someone being beaten that we hear at the metal gate in the Gallows? Then there are the templars who had no problem with Ser Alrik threatening a mage child with tranquility and rape right in front of them. What about the templars who rape Alain? What about Meredith's death squad of templars who are killing people?

Mages and templars alike can do horrible things.

tankdogg937 wrote...

One Templar can't destroy an entire city block.

No, one templar can simply participate in killing hundreds of innocent men, women, and children with their swords of mercy, because a rogue Grey Warden who was never a member of the Kirkwall Circle killed the Grand Cleric.

tankdogg937 wrote...

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.

Isn't that precisely what Meredith does when she orders the execution of every single mage in the Circle of Kirkwall, for an act that none of them are responsible for?

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

There are two different versions - the Orlesian version, which is provided for virtually all the Wardens except the Dalish Warden, and the Dalish version, that is provided for the Dalish protagonist. The Orlesian version paints the elves as the transgressors, and the Dalish version paints the Orlesians and the Chantry as the ones responsible for the fall of the Dales.[/quote]

No, there are no two different versions. It's two sides of the same coin. They are not mutually exclusive - because both sides share a portion of the blame, yet neither wants to admit it. Hence me saying all along that the full truth lies in the middle, which you will get when you simply combine both accounts, as I have done. [/quote]

I'm not addressing who is right, and who is wrong. I'm not trying to address what the truth is. I'm simply addressing that both sides give different accounts - the Orlesians have one version, and the Dalish have another version. Since the actual events transpired centuries prior to Origins, there's no way to know what actually happened.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, how is it artifically created when the Dalish Warden's codex entry about the fall of the Dales addresses the templars entering the Dales as a result of the elves refusal to convert to the Andrastian Chantry and kicking out the missionaries as the reason for the fall of the Dales?[/quote]

Because it doesn't. This is something you keep making up to support your argument. [/quote]

I didn't make up the Dalish Warden's codex entry on the fall of the Dales; one of the developers for Origins did.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

The article you are referring to does not talk about the reason for the templars presence at all. Fact. It says they showed up sometime after they kicked out the missionaries. It does not claim a reason for their presence. You are allowing yourself to get manipulated by the way the text was (intentionally) worded when it tells of their appearance right after it tells of the missionaries. [/quote]

It addresses the fall of the Dales, as does the Orlesian version about the fall of the Dales. It's sparse, but then again, so is the Orlesian version provided to all the non-Dalish Wardens.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

You are artificially creating a contradiction when you conjure a reason compatible with your personal opinion out of thin air, when we already have a historical account providing one. As long as no Dalish account contradicts it, I see no reason to distrust the Orlesian tale. Just like I have no reason to distrust the Dalish tale as long as there are no contradictions from the Orlesian side. [/quote]

The obvious contradiction is that both sides claim the other started the war.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

And said contradictions do not exist. Both tales simply omit details to sway the reader's focus, but neither tells a lie.

And Red Crossing is referenced as a reason for the war in elven tales as well, in case you have forgotten. [/quote]

The codex entry I'm referencing is inferred to be addressed among multiple clans. Merrill's clan is the Sabrae clan, which is the same clan the Dalish Warden belongs to, and the protagonist has heard the version I am addressing; the fall of the Dales in the Dalish codex was chronicled by the Ralaferin clan.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It seems like the pro-templar fans are simply arguing that the only version out there is the Orlesian version: the one that paints the Orlesians and the Chantry as the victims of human sacrificing elves who sacked Red Crossing for no reason, but the problem is the Dalish Warden's codex entry about the fall of the Dales already addresses that there's another version out there.[/quote]

Nope. As I said, there is no contradiction, so why should any of us favor an Orlesian version of history when they are not mutually exclusive but can be combined seamlessly?

It just seems as if you, the pro-mage fan, want to create one in order to paint the Chantry in a bad light. [/quote]

They are mutually exclusive by virtue of each side blaming the other for the war.

How is it painting the Chantry in a bad light to address that the Dalish Warden's codex about the fall of the Dales provides a different scenerio than the one chronicled in the Orlesian version? I'm not claiming one is accurate, and the other isn't; I am simply addressing that there are two different scenerios provided in two different codex entries about the fall of the Dales, nothing more, and nothing less.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Are you going to argue that the Orlesian version can't possibly be true because it's sparse as well?[/quote]

Are my posts really this hard to understand?

Let me use bold text as well, if you are so convinced this will help:

They are both true. There is no contradiction. Neither the Elves nor the Orlesians are lying. [/quote]

Both codex entries have the historians blame the other side. There is a contradiction. You're welcome to speculate that there's truth to be found in accepting a middle ground between both versions, but that doesn't change the fact that both versions give different accounts for the war.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Orlesian and Dalish codex entries deal with the fall of the Dales. Both are sparse. While you dismiss the Dalish codex for being sparse, you don't seem to do the same for the Orlesian version.[/quote]

I do not dismiss anything. Stop claiming I do. [/quote]

You seem to be addressing your speculation as fact, which means you are dismissing what's explicitly addressed in favor of what you think may be the truth between both versions.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Both versions have the historians place the blame on the war on the other side; I'm simply acknowledging that both versions exist, while the pro-Chantry fans seem eager to argue that only the historial account that benefits their favored faction is the only valid one out there.[/quote]

No, this is not how it looks like to me at all. Neither the Dalish nor the Orlesian accounts of history should be regarded as the only truth. The valid history is, as far as I can see, the combination of the two - which coincides with what the Elders of the City Elves tell their people.

What you attempt is to make it look as if these historical accounts are not compatible (when they perfectly are) and thus cast the Chantry's version into doubt, when not even the Dalish claim it is untrue. Which I do believe stems from your scepticism regarding the Chantry in general.[/quote]

It's not an issue of being "the only truth," it's an issue of what the historians chronicle as their history. I'm addressing what both historians address as their history, you are addressing what the actual truth could be. You may well be right that the actual truth is a mix of the two, but that doesn't change that it's speculation about what the actual truth really is. It is simply not something we will ever know.

[DKJaigen]

Ah, come on. Everyone debating in these threads does this - it's half the fun and half the annoyance at the same time.

Besides emperor you are the only one that does so. Thats why i find you more funny most of the time and ignore you for the rest of the time. If i where to resort to your tactics i simply say that their is a 100% chance that the mages will find a solution to possesion. If i do that i just invalidate everything you have said so far.

And what "tiny bits of information" did you use to come to your conclusion that it's the Chantry/Orlais that has to be blamed for the war, mhm?

Girl when you dont have any information you resort to motives. The elves have no motive for attacking the strongest human nation in thedas. Orlais and the chantry on the other hand have plenty of reasons. Thats not 100% foolproof but far better then what you are trying to do.

Don't blame me for sticking to what it actually says in the games.

You go on about it like this : RED CROSSING,  RED CROSSING , RED CROSSING DERP DERP DERP.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 04 avril 2012 - 04:14 .

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

The version of history you are referring to does not even claim that the war started because the Chantry sent in templars. It jumps straight from missionaries kicked out of the Dales to templars razing Halamshiral. No mention of Red Crossing anywhere, omitting the Chantry's actual reason for war. That is historical revisionism. Note that the Keeper this account stems from is also not the same guy who talks about Red Crossing as the incident that sparked the war:

"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."

You're mistaken. No Dalish Keeper said this. The person who said this was Sarethia, hahren of the Highever alienage. He explicitly chronicled (in the City Elf Codex):

"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.

"We were not enslaved as we had been before, but our worship of the ancient gods was now forbidden. We were allowed to live among the humans only as second-class citizens who worshipped their Maker, forgetting once more the scraps of lore we had maintained through the centuries."

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages become abominations in Dragon Age II in ways that specifically contradict the actual lore about mages. Mages can't turn into abominations without a demon, and we see mages continually turn into abominations without even entering the Fade to make a deal with a demon; as we see in Origins and read from the lore (including Aeonar), mages aren't conscious in the real world when they enter the Fade.

What you are forgetting is that mages continuously tap into the Fade when casting their magic. The more powerful a spell, the more it weakens the veil, in turn allowing demons to break through and assault a mage's mind. David Gaider actually describes this in detail in the novel "Asunder" when he mentions how this almost happens to Rhys in a moment of temptation regarding the power at his fingertips. This is both compatible with the rules of the Dragon Age pen&paper RPG as well as what we see in Dragon Age 2.

The abomination whose escape and killing spree led to the creation of the Right of Annulment was created by a demon possessing mages outside the Fade as well. This is referenced in Dragon Age: Origins already.

We know that demons can break through into the real world in places where the Veil is thin, they just need to possess something else they get pulled back into the Fade. We have also heard numerous times that Kirkwall is a city where the Veil is especially thin, and in the DLC "The Exiled Prince" we encounter a demon who managed to remain in solid form for a prolonged amount of time, so actually I don't see why demons popping up from the ground in areas where the Veil is weak should violate anything that has been published before. It fits to both DA:O as well as the P&P and the novels.

LobselVith8 wrote...
I didn't make up the Dalish Warden's codex entry on the fall of the Dales; one of the developers for Origins did.

Please stop trying to twist my words. You are making up a non-existent contradiction between the accounts.

LobselVith8 wrote...
The obvious contradiction is that both sides claim the other started the war.

But they don't! According to the Chantry's accounts themselves, war was declared in response to the attack on Red Crossing. The Dalish do not dispute this attack.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between two nations in an official state of war and a peacetime raid. Either way, nobody disputes that the official declaration of war came from the humans, just like nobody disputes that Red Crossing happened before. So you're just making stuff up.

"Finally, in 2:9 Glory, elven forces attack the Orlesian town of Red Crossing and quickly take it over. The atrocities they are said to have committed there against the humans of the town and the Chantry enraged humans across the land. Orlais immediately went to war with the Dales but was initially surprised by the ferocity of the elven response. A quick Orlesian victory was not going to happen."
- out-of-character timeline of the guide

"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."
- Chantry account as given by Sister Petrine

LobselVith8 wrote...
You're mistaken. No Dalish Keeper said this. The person who said this was Sarethia, hahren of the Highever alienage.

So? Are you trying to tell me that the city elves are twisting their own history? Wouldn't the Dalish have a much better reason to do so? The city elf version actually seems like the most complete account as it doesn't try to single out a singular party to blame - unlike the Dalish and the Orlesian tales.

Not to mention that I still don't see the contradiction. Hence me saying it ties into each other nicely and everything is valid, or rather equally necessary for the bigger picture ...

DKJaigen wrote...
Besides emperor you are the only one that does so.

Well, I'd say this seems to be in the eye of the beholder, but it appears as if you are certainly convinced of your superior skill in debating things. It must be obvious that all the quotes I'm pulling mean nothing when confronted with your opinion. I bow to you.

DKJaigen wrote...
Girl when you dont have any information you resort to motives. The elves have no motive for attacking the strongest human nation in thedas.

Pray tell why Red Crossing happened, then?

I guess we must have wholly incompatible impressions regarding the potential for aggression in the Dalish people.

DKJaigen wrote...
You go on about it like this : RED CROSSING,  RED CROSSING , RED CROSSING DERP DERP DERP.

Facts can be inconvenient, mhm? Especially when this one turns the whole argument around.

But you know what ... you're right - it's no use repeating it over and over again.

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

I give up, I am now convinced any further discussion with the two of you is useless.
Since you two must feel the same way by now, I'll just do us all a favour and leave it at that.

Modifié par Lynata, 04 avril 2012 - 05:08 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Mages become abominations in Dragon Age II in ways that specifically contradict the actual lore about mages. Mages can't turn into abominations without a demon, and we see mages continually turn into abominations without even entering the Fade to make a deal with a demon; as we see in Origins and read from the lore (including Aeonar), mages aren't conscious in the real world when they enter the Fade.[/quote]

What you are forgetting is that mages continuously tap into the Fade when casting their magic. [/quote]

There is a difference between tapping into the Fade to use magical abilities, and literally being in the Fade to converse with a spirit or a demon. Wynne recounting her first use of magic demonstrates that. The danger of possession comes from the fact that mages can enter the Fade when they are awake. We see that evidenced in Origins and Awakening, when a person in the Fade is clearly not conscious or aware in the real world. The mages in Ostagar - who are in the Fade - are clearly not aware of what is going on in the real world. Even in Dragon Age II, "Night Terrors" demonstrates this, as Feynriel is plaqued by demons while he is asleep.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

The more powerful a spell, the more it weakens the veil, in turn allowing demons to break through and assault a mage's mind. David Gaider actually describes this in detail in the novel "Asunder" when he mentions how this almost happens to Rhys in a moment of temptation regarding the power at his fingertips. This is both compatible with the rules of the Dragon Age pen&paper RPG as well as what we see in Dragon Age 2. [/quote]

Rhys is a spirit medium, and it's already established in Dragon Age II that spirit healers often turn to spirits in order to power some of their spells. Anders was able to heal people because of his symbiosis with Justice, who was effectively powering a lot of the spells he used to heal people. In Asunder, they specifically head to Adamant fortress, where the Veil is thin, where demons overran the fortress and killed people.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

The abomination whose escape and killing spree led to the creation of the Right of Annulment was created by a demon possessing mages outside the Fade as well. This is referenced in Dragon Age: Origins already. [/quote]

The mages summoned the demon into the real world to attack the templars. It's demonology. It's no different than when Uldred became an abomination because he summoned too many demons into the real world, and couldn't control them.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

We know that demons can break through into the real world in places where the Veil is thin, they just need to possess something else they get pulled back into the Fade. We have also heard numerous times that Kirkwall is a city where the Veil is especially thin, and in the DLC "The Exiled Prince" we encounter a demon who managed to remain in solid form for a prolonged amount of time, so actually I don't see why demons popping up from the ground in areas where the Veil is weak should violate anything that has been published before. It fits to both DA:O as well as the P&P and the novels. [/quote]

Abominations aren't demons. Abominations are possessed mages. Seeing them treated as summoned demons in Dragon Age II is against the lore, and even the developers acknowledged that it was simply an issue of game mechanics.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I didn't make up the Dalish Warden's codex entry on the fall of the Dales; one of the developers for Origins did.[/quote]

Please stop trying to twist my words. You are making up a non-existent contradiction between the accounts. [/quote]

Considering that part of your defense for your argument came from a City Elf codex that you claimed was from one of the Dalish Keepers, you should really watch what you say. I'm not the one who claimed that a Keeper said that Red Crossing was the start of the war - you were, and you were mistaken. It came from the hahren of the Highever alienage. I've been the only addressing that the Dalish codex claims the war started because of the Chantry and the templars, and that's specifically what can be read from the codex.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The obvious contradiction is that both sides claim the other started the war.[/quote]

But they don't! According to the Chantry's accounts themselves, war was declared in response to the attack on Red Crossing. The Dalish do not dispute this attack.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between two nations in an official state of war and a peacetime raid. Either way, nobody disputes that the official declaration of war came from the humans, just like nobody disputes that Red Crossing happened before. So you're just making stuff up. [/quote]

"Making stuff up"? With all due respect, that would be you, as I addressed when I pointed out that you "misquoted" one of the City Elf codex entries and claimed it came from one of the Dalish Keepers, even though it was actually from one of the hahren of the Highever alienage. I've addressed that the Dalish Warden's codex provides a different reason for the war between humans and elves than the Orlesian codex provided to the non-Dalish Wardens.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

"Finally, in 2:9 Glory, elven forces attack the Orlesian town of Red Crossing and quickly take it over. The atrocities they are said to have committed there against the humans of the town and the Chantry enraged humans across the land. Orlais immediately went to war with the Dales but was initially surprised by the ferocity of the elven response. A quick Orlesian victory was not going to happen."
- out-of-character timeline of the guide [/quote]

Which doesn't change the fact that the Dalish claim hostilities began when the Chantry sent in templars into the Dales after the elves kicked out the missionaries. Even the Ages article you have quoted makes reference to the fact that there were already hostilities between the elves of the Dales and the humans of Orlais. The Orlesian version claims that the war began because of the unprovoked attack on Red Crossing, while the Dalish version claims the war began because the Chantry sent in templars after they kicked out their missionaries. If the attack against Red Crossing was in response to the templar incursion of the Dales, then it explains why the elves attacked Red Crossing in the first place.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

"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."
- Chantry account as given by Sister Petrine [/quote]

That's from the codex entry on the fall of the Dales provided to all the non-Dalish Wardens. It's the Orlesian version of events, where the Orlesians and the Chantry are painted as the victims of elves they insinuated were committing human sacrifices.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You're mistaken. No Dalish Keeper said this. The person who said this was Sarethia, hahren of the Highever alienage.[/quote]

So? Are you trying to tell me that the city elves are twisting their own history? Wouldn't the Dalish have a much better reason to do so? The city elf version actually seems like the most complete account as it doesn't try to single out a singular party to blame - unlike the Dalish and the Orlesian tales. [/quote]

Considering that the City Elves barely know their own culture and history, with hahren Sarethia admitting in the same codex that the city elves were "forgetting once more the scraps of lore we had maintained through the centuries," I don't see the strength in the argument. Their knowledge of the fall of the Dales comes from the same source as the rest of the Andrastians in the Andrastian nations, as the only historian to contradict the Orlesian version is Gisharel, Keeper of the Ralaferin clan of the Dalish elves.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

Not to mention that I still don't see the contradiction. Hence me saying it ties into each other nicely and everything is valid, or rather equally necessary for the bigger picture ... [/quote]

Except for the fact that Gisharel provides a completely different reason for why the Dales fell to the Orlesians and the Chantry of Andraste.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 04 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[TEWR]

From what I can recall, the Second Blight saw much of Orlais' fertile land destroyed by the Taint, turning them into the barren wastes we know only as the Blightlands.

The Dalish happened to be living in fertile land -- the Dales -- at the time and are 'reputed' to have not sent aid to defeat the Blight.

I put reputed in quotation marks because I find that absolutely absurd to believe.

[Lynata]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
The Dalish happened to be living in fertile land -- the Dales -- at the time and are 'reputed' to have not sent aid to defeat the Blight.
I put reputed in quotation marks because I find that absolutely absurd to believe.

According to the out-of-character timeline in the official game guide, this does seem to be true:

"Throughout this entire time, the elves of the Dales remain neutral and unhelpful. When the city of Montsimmard is nearly destroyed by the darkspawn in 1:25 Divine as the elven army watched from nearby, the people of Orlais bristled against the elves."
-- http://horography.we...velersguide.htm

Is this really surprising after what we've seen in DA:O, though? Didn't really look as if anyone jumped at the chance to combat the Blight back then, regardless of country or race. Coincidentally, the lack of cooperation between the rulers and generals during the First Blight is what led to the creation of the Grey Wardens in the first place, which were formed by soldiers and knights basically deserting their armies to create this order.


@LobselVith8: Just to clarify, I've been going by the Grey Wardens website, which unfortunately lists the Keeper as the author of this account. If this is wrong, then I'm sorry, it was certainly not my intention to work with flawed sources - and unlike some I am able to admit to such mistakes.

I still do not see what this would change, however, and my previous points still stand - though I did notice you are trying to twist my words again with your subtle change regarding where your "contradictions" are situated now compared to your previous posts.

But I'll keep to my earlier intention and refrain from discussing this further - no doubt we will never agree on this topic.

Modifié par Lynata, 04 avril 2012 - 07:45 .

[TEWR]

I just don't really buy it, because I don't see the basis for why they would remain neutral during a Blight.

But this is all stuff I've discussed before, where if it did happen and they did remain neutral during the Blight the only thing I could think of was that their Elven superiority complex came into play, and even that always seemed flimsy at best to me.

And I imagine that stuff like that has to use the already existing lore and not create new lore of its own, given how it isn't a very good medium for new lore to be introduced.

Perhaps answers will appear in DA3. Perhaps Divine Justinia V knows the truth behind it. Perhaps my speculation from this thread -- http://social.biowar...4/index/8385331 -- isn't all that wrong.

I can't say. But I will say that I take the Chantry's version of events with a grain of salt, given Orlais' and the Chantry's past history regarding other nations.

Is this really surprising after what we've seen in DA:O, though? Didn't really look as if anyone jumped at the chance to combat the Blight back then, regardless of country or race. Coincidentally, the lack of cooperation between the rulers and generals during the First Blight is what led to the creation of the Grey Wardens in the first place, which were formed by soldiers and knights basically deserting their armies to create this order.

Not true. Orlais had received word of the Blight and were marching to help fight it, but were turned away at the border. I see it as likely that perhaps Celene I conversed with the monarchs and heads of state of the other nations and requested their assistance as well.

How many would've agreed to help -- if they were even contacted -- I don't know. But I do know that Loghain made sure that Ferelden would stand on its own against the Blight. His paranoia drove him to refuse outside aid, unless he specifically requested it -- like he did with the Dwarves.

The Dwarves weren't adverse to helping Ferelden, but with Endrin's death they had bigger issues. They couldn't wage a two-front campaign -- one against the Darkspawn and the other against themselves -- if they weren't unified.

Arguably, one could say they've never been truly unified under their traditionalist ways. And it's certainly a line of thought I'd agree with.

Zathrian said he wanted to help, but the curse rendered him unable to offer any legitimate assistance that would make a difference.

I wonder for how many centuries Zathrian has lived. We only know that it was for "many centuries". But could he have perhaps been around during the Exalted March of the Dales?

It's unlikely, but not impossible.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 avril 2012 - 08:07 .

[Lynata]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I wonder for how many centuries Zathrian has lived. We only know that it was for "many centuries". But could he have perhaps been around during the Exalted March of the Dales?

About 300 years, at least as per this interview.

I may have forgotten about Orlais' readiness to help out - in this case I guess it makes sense given the Chantry's influence and that it regards fighting the darkspawn as a holy task (and the primary reason for why Circle mages are trained in battle magic in addition to healing, enchanting, etc).
Do we know anything about the other countries or the Avvar and Chasind?

In the end, I guess I'm just assuming the worst and expect most rulers to think for themselves first, not lending aid for any number of reasons - from planning to wait just a bit to have that neighboring country "softened up" for future invasion (or as payback for previous conflicts) right up to saving one's own troops to protect the own realm instead of being killed in defense of a faraway land. Shortsightedness, basically. Politicians often suffer from it.
Wasn't that one of the themes in Lord of the Rings as well? I've only seen the movies once, but I vaguely recall something like that.

[dragonflight288]

Need I also mention that the person Loghain sent as an emissary to the dwarves was an arrogant, stuck up moron who couldn't handle rejection or being treated the same courtesy the Grey Wardens were.

"I won't abide by this! I'm his messenger!"

Right....you'd have more luck convincing the Arch Demon to attack Orlais and allow Loghain more time to kill every noble opposing him..er...unite Ferelden.

That fact, added in that most dwarves don't care about the blight, as they live it every day there isn't one. When the darkspawn go to the surface is the ONLY time dwarves get a moment of peace from the darkspawn.

[TEWR]

Lynata wrote...

About 300 years, at least as per this interview.

Thanks. So he was born sometime in the Steel Age or the Storm Age.

I think it says something about the Dalish if in 300 years, Zathrian's clan hadn't really made any true progress towards restoring their culture.

It seems that most Dalish Elves would rather focus on living lives where their history isn't known to them, rather then being proactive.

They claim it's their mantra, but it seems they'd rather just stumble upon a treasure trove of information rather then do anything about it.

I may have forgotten about Orlais' readiness to help out - in this case I guess it makes sense given the Chantry's influence and that it regards fighting the darkspawn as a holy task (and the primary reason for why Circle mages are trained in battle magic in addition to healing, enchanting, etc).

I wouldn't chalk it up to the Chantry being benevolent. It was mostly Celene and Cailan's doing that prompted Orlais to offer assistance, though how well that would've worked out for Ferelden is unknown, given how much of Orlais now wants to reconquer the "filthy barbarians" next to them.

And when Ferelden was under Orlesian rule, the populus of Ferelden was treated horribly. Elves, Humans, and more then likely Dwarves as well. Elves were sold as cattle, Orlesian nobles would sacrifice children to feed their vanity claiming it was their "right", rape was commonplace, Mabari were stolen, mistreated, and subsequently left to die as a result.

Celene may be a good queen worthy of one's trust, but much of Orlais' nobility is rotten to the core.

Do we know anything about the other countries or the Avvar and Chasind?

Do you mean regarding magic or the Blight?

If for magic, then I believe the Avvar warriors didn't fear their magic, as the Avvar Sky Cult employed magic to do many things. The Chasind are led by their Shamans, and they fear the Witches of the Wild but revere Flemeth -- who is reputed to have taught the Shamans what they know. We also know that the nation of Rivain -- part of it anyway -- has free mages that willingly allow themselves to be possessed, and aren't killed for it.

If for the Blight, then the Chasind had fought the Darkspawn themselves but were slaughtered and were forced to retreat. No one really sees much of the Avvar barbarians, as they've pretty much been gone for many years. The Antivan Crows were assisting Loghain because they thought he was the best chance of the Blight being defeated. It's safe to say that Loghain may have been paying them to help fight the Darkspawn, both before the treasury vaults were empty and after when he was selling Elves into slavery.

The Free Marches had sent Ferelden some aid. Well, specifically Kirkwall. Lord Harimann will tell Hawke that he was one of the few nobles to do so, and it earned him the ire of other nobility.

But the Free Marches aren't really unified, so any true aid from the whole country didn't happen.

Tevinter -- as we all know -- helped supply Ferelden with money in exchange for slaves. I don't condone what Loghain did, but I can certainly understand why he did it. I take from his persona that he didn't want to do it to anyone -- be they of any race -- but he felt he had no choice considering he was going up against an army of his own.

It's not the first time though he's emptied Ferelden's treasury. The first was when Maric disappeared at sea -- which was en route to a meeting of important people within the Free Marches, hoping to unify them -- and he emptied much of the vault searching for him.

Loghain was convinced Orlais was behind it, and I suppose we'll find out who was behind it in the comics.

There's plenty of indirect assistance from the other nations, but direct assistance wasn't provided from very many. Due to both Loghain and the other nations. It's a combination. The Warden however is able to rally one nation -- city-state would probably be more accurate -- to aid Ferelden, along with an entire culture/section of the Chantry's military arm and hundreds of Elves, if not thousands.

The last one could be considered a country's populus on their own, but they're not a country themselves.

In the end, I guess I'm just assuming the worst and expect most rulers to think for themselves first, not lending aid for any number of reasons - from planning to wait just a bit to have that neighboring country "softened up" for future invasion (or as payback for previous conflicts) right up to saving one's own troops to protect the own realm instead of being killed in defense of a faraway land. Shortsightedness, basically. Politicians often suffer from it.
Wasn't that one of the themes in Lord of the Rings as well? I've only seen the movies once, but I vaguely recall something like that.

True enough, most politicians are shortsighted. I don't know if Orlais didn't suffer from it as well. Celene didn't, but the rest of Orlais isn't as innocent, methinks.

dragonflight288 wrote...

Need I also mention that the person Loghain sent as an emissary to the dwarves was an arrogant, stuck up moron who couldn't handle rejection or being treated the same courtesy the Grey Wardens were.

"I won't abide by this! I'm his messenger!"

Right....you'd have more luck convincing the Arch Demon to attack Orlais and allow Loghain more time to kill every noble opposing him..er...unite Ferelden.

That fact, added in that most dwarves don't care about the blight, as they live it every day there isn't one. When the darkspawn go to the surface is the ONLY time dwarves get a moment of peace from the darkspawn.

Right. Had Loghain's messenger even been able to enter the city, he wouldn't have been given the time of day to plead his case, king or no. He -- and by extension Loghain -- was not respected within Orzammar's walls. Orzammar probably would've only agreed to fight the Blight if one monarch asked for help: King Maric Theirin. We learn from Levi Dryden that King Maric rescinded Arland's decree of exiling the Wardens to help improve relations with Orzammar.

And sure enough, I bet the Dwarves were grateful for that.

But if Loghain asked, he would've gotten a big fat no from the Dwarves.

The Warden on the other hand has a bonafide contract signed by King Eithnar Bemot, who disbanded the Assembly and said the army was loyal to the crown, not the noble houses during a time of war. As such, the Warden is automatically given the respect he/she deserves and would be heard out, though without a king support wouldn't have really happened.

Bemot had the right idea. The Dwarves are engaged in an endless war with the Darkspawn, so the Assembly should've always been disbanded. 

Traditionalism in a time of peace is tolerable, if heavily flawed given how Orzammar operates under such a method -- specifically the Casteless. I don't condone how they treat the casteless, don't get me wrong. But if they were in peacetime, the traditionalism wouldn't be detrimental to their society. Merely unethical. But they're in war. A constant war. The surface lands' nightmare is their everyday. Traditionalism can't save them.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 avril 2012 - 03:49 .

[TEWR]

Having conquered several neighboring city-states and forcing the submission of others to his overlordship, Kordillus Drakon is crowned in Val Royeaux as emperor. His ambitions to spread farther north into the Free Marches are confounded by constant pressures from the Dales to the east, so Emperor Drakon formalizes the Maker's cult into the Chantry and commands that missionaries be sent forth into the other lands.

I just found this from this website: http://www.users.on....ex_timeline.pdf

It's interesting, because it notes that Emperor Drakon wanted to conquer the Free Marches but the Dales stood in his way. So he needed to convert them and acquire that land before he could have a chance at conquering the Free Marches.

That makes it very interesting to note why the Elves may not have wanted to help Orlais at the time. The Chantry -- when it was first established -- and Orlais was not friendly to their belief system and only wanted more land under their thumb. It's still poor reasoning, since the Blight should've taken precedence over everything, but it makes it somewhat more believable as to why they remained neutral to the cries of help from the Orlesians.

Orlais' history is rife with taking control of nations when they are at their weakest or when Orlais believes they are in the right. The Anderfels was saved by the Orlesian Empire and the Wardens -- who at that time still served the Chantry -- and subsequently became a part of the Empire. The Free Marches also joined the Empire.

After Drakon's death by old age, the Anderfels and the majority of the Free Marches broke away from the Empire.

Eventually, the Exalted March of the Dales began -- though I doubt we have the full story, and I doubt that what we have is the truth -- but the history shows that the original instigators of the conflict was the Chantry, but more specifically Orlais. Wanting to conquer more land, they sent missionaries to try and bring the land between Orlais and the Free Marches under their banner, so that they could minimize casualties if they had to resort to force.

It makes Orlais and the Chantry seem awfully suspicious for the events that led to the Exalted March of the Dales that led to the Falling of the Dales.

And after the Third Blight, Orlais tried to conquer Nevarra and control them. They controlled Nevarra for a brief time, but eventually were unable to hold onto it.

It goes on and on, with Orlais' history painting it as an expansionist nation, uncaring for the lives of its neighbors. So long as they can bring it under their banner, it's their "right" to own that land.

This is why the Chantry is viewed with much disdain and why the events of Red Crossing cannot be taken as definitive proof of what happened. Because the Chantry is involved with politics and deeply interwoven in Orlesian society. Trying to separate the two as being two different entities is futile, because they aren't.

And that's partially why I believe that at best, it was fringe elements of the Dalish Elves that had no real affiliation with the Elves of the country itself that created the conflict, and the Chantry/Orlais wasn't willing to see reason.

And at worst, the Chantry/Orlais hired Elves that turned back from the Long Walk and lived in human cities to sack Red Crossing, so that they'd have pretense to call for war.

We've already seen one case of an Elf selling out her fellow kin -- the Tevinter Elf in DAO. There's no reason it wouldn't have happened prior, under a different country's banner.

Even Brother Genitivi notes that the Dalish Elf he talked with said that most of the Dalish Elves would just rather be left alone, believing that violence only begets more violence. So I see my fringe element theory as likely.

Certainly wouldn't be the first time the Chantry held an entire culture as culpable for the actions of a few.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 avril 2012 - 12:15 .

[Lazy Jer]

DKJaigen wrote...

You go on about it like this : RED CROSSING,  RED CROSSING , RED CROSSING DERP DERP DERP.

Did you seriously type that?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lazy Jer wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

You go on about it like this : RED CROSSING,  RED CROSSING , RED CROSSING DERP DERP DERP.

Did you seriously type that?

He is a brute... What else did you expect?

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

You go on about it like this : RED CROSSING,  RED CROSSING , RED CROSSING DERP DERP DERP.

Did you seriously type that?

He is a brute... What else did you expect?

Though his phrasing definitely could've been better, he does have a point underneath it all. All Red Crossing tells us is that Elves were blamed for the chaos that unfolded there.

But we don't know the validity of such a claim, for various reasons:

1) It was written by the victors of the Exalted March. The Dalish version doesn't substantiate such a claim. Nor does it explicitly contradict it.
2) We don't know whether Elves were actually responsible. More then likely, yes they were.
3) If Elves did indeed cause the incident, there's no real proof linking them to the Elves of the Dales other then "They're Elves that attacked a border village, they must be linked to the Dales". At best, the evidence is circumstantial.

For that last one, let me elaborate: As I've said, the Elves could've been fringe elements of the Dalish Elves. Or they could've been city elves employed by Orlais or the Chantry to convey a sense of the Dalish being responsible. Finally, they could've been neither city Elves nor Dalish Elves. They could've been Elves that began a life of banditry.

In Awakening, the Warden will encounter groups of Elven bandits that have no affiliation with the Dalish or city elves, in random encounters.

Not to mention the evidence I've given pointing to Orlais and the Chantry being the ones people should suspect more.

Like I said, his phrasing was pretty bad, but there was a point buried deep beneath it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 avril 2012 - 01:54 .

[dragonflight288]

Traditionalism in a time of peace is tolerable, if heavily flawed given how Orzammar operates under such a method -- specifically the Casteless. I don't condone how they treat the casteless, don't get me wrong. But if they were in peacetime, the traditionalism wouldn't be detrimental to their society. Merely unethical. But they're in war. A constant war. The surface lands' nightmare is their everyday. Traditionalism can't save them.

True that. I agree with this greatly. Thorin Aeducan, in my fanfiction Aeducan Memories on fanfiction.net pretty much starts out wanting a blight because it would give him room to (while he's still a commander) to push the darkspawn back and retake the thaigs, draw a border, build defenses, and essentially make a line to hold against the darkspawn, completely uncaring if the world above burns.

Having conquered several neighboring city-states and forcing the submission of others to his overlordship, Kordillus Drakon is crowned in Val Royeaux as emperor. His ambitions to spread farther north into the Free Marches are confounded by constant pressures from the Dales to the east, so Emperor Drakon formalizes the Maker's cult into the Chantry and commands that missionaries be sent forth into the other lands.

I just found this from this website: http://www.users.on....ex_timeline.pdf

Interesting. Very interesting. Only more evidence that supports that the Chantry is in bed with Orlais from the very conception, and adds more controversy to the Fall of the Dales and who instigated the whole thing.

1) It was written by the victors of the Exalted March. The Dalish version doesn't substantiate such a claim. Nor does it explicitly contradict it.
2) We don't know whether Elves were actually responsible. More then likely, yes they were.
3) If Elves did indeed cause the incident, there's no real proof linking them to the Elves of the Dales other then "They're Elves that attacked a border village, they must be linked to the Dales". At best, the evidence is circumstantial.

All that is said is completely plausible, some more than others, but all are valid arguments. Without an unbiased source or actually being there, we'll never truly know for sure.

[Lynata]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
But we don't know the validity of such a claim, for various reasons:
1) It was written by the victors of the Exalted March. The Dalish version doesn't substantiate such a claim. Nor does it explicitly contradict it.

There is also what the Elders of the City Elves - I suppose you could count them as the losers - tell, which coincides with both the Dalish and the Chantry version, basically being the middle ground. Hence me saying all along that this is probably the most accurate account, simply because it makes both sides look bad and doesn't conflict with anything, whereas the Dalish are omitting the attack on Red Crossing and the Chantry omits the pressure by their missionaries - which are exactly the reasons that led to the conflict.

The City Elves' account also confirms that it was indeed a fringe element of the Dalish. Or rather, not exactly fringe but rogue. From what it sounds like it was a band of young elves who just decided that enough was enough and they should send a sign.

Said sign provided the humans with the perfect reason to go to war. An "unprovoked" attack incorporating the slaughter of innocent townsfolk? What more could the rulers hope for?

So, one could debate whether Red Crossing was an excuse to invade or rather the cause of truly righteous anger at coldblooded murder. I would say it was both at the same time. And with the Dalish living in self-proclaimed isolation from the neighboring realms, there weren't even any means to verify whether this attack was a sanctioned act of war or not. I don't think anybody cared. The attackers were elves, and that's that.

To be fair, given Dalish clan structure and tight society, assuming that a Dalish strike team would operate on behalf of their Keeper is the most natural assumption, and since there have apparently already been violent border clashes, the humans had no reason to doubt that the Dalish as a whole might disagree with what happened.

This is why I like the setting so much, actually. No-one is innocent. Templars, mages, elves, humans - they all have their flaws, leading to (objectively viewed) unnecessary suffering and violence, making Thedas as a whole look much more realistic than your usual cliché fantasy setting.
In this case, members of the Chantry began antagonizing the elves by pestering them with missionaries, and in reaction, members of the Dalish clans spilled the first blood. You may argue whether the beginning or the escalation is worse, but in the end, everyone is to blame. At least as far as I am interpreting the available sources.

dragonflight288 wrote...
All that is said is completely plausible, some more than others, but all are valid arguments. Without an unbiased source or actually being there, we'll never truly know for sure.

Well, technically, the timeline from the guide is an unbiased source, as it seems to be the only one not written from some character's PoV?

Modifié par Lynata, 05 avril 2012 - 03:16 .

[dragonflight288]

Well, technically, the timeline from the guide is an unbiased source, as it is the only one not written from some character's PoV.

Can't dispute that. I gather most of my information from codexes and try to piece the timeline and the puzzle together on my own. Anything that sounds like their side is the victim or the other side is evil, I usually take with a grain of salt, or more accurately, just expect only a small portion of what is in the Codex is actually fact and the rest is victors spoils/losers focus.

[LadyJaneGrey]

@OP  It's pretty simple, actually.  My poor Hawke was attacked by the mages she was trying to protect all through Act III, had her sibling kidnapped by a blood mage she helped, lost her mother to blood magic, watched a mage blow up a religious institution, and then watched Orsino go stabby-stabby-mua-ha-ha after easily defending the mages against the Templars.

More of my Hawkes side with the mages than the templars...but it's not hard to see why mages need boundaries, be it self-imposed or institution-based.

[upsettingshorts]

Easily.