546 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
The point is that the Templar supporters are trying to paint (or seem to) as some sort of Magister-lite dictatorship that is dominated by magic and that isn't the case.  In fact keeper's almost never use magic (and almost never publically) and being mages is the least important part of being a keeper.  The magic is important only because it reflects a heritage that all elvhan once had.

No, it's not. The point is not whether the Keepers constantly abuse their autorithy or whether they can only reach a leadership position by doing what the Tevinters do: kill everyone higher up the ladder.
The point is that should a Keeper decide to abuse her authority; such as Marethari did by being unable to let Merril go; the other elves can do nothing other than accept the decisions of the Keeper or abandon the clan. That is a problem.
And the other point is that only mages can become Keeper. Regardless of why it happens, that's still a problem.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
The point is that the Templar supporters are trying to paint (or seem to) as some sort of Magister-lite dictatorship that is dominated by magic and that isn't the case.  In fact keeper's almost never use magic (and almost never publically) and being mages is the least important part of being a keeper.  The magic is important only because it reflects a heritage that all elvhan once had.

No, it's not. The point is not whether the Keepers constantly abuse their autorithy or whether they can only reach a leadership position by doing what the Tevinters do: kill everyone higher up the ladder.
The point is that should a Keeper decide to abuse her authority; such as Marethari did by being unable to let Merril go; the other elves can do nothing other than accept the decisions of the Keeper or abandon the clan. That is a problem.
And the other point is that only mages can become Keeper. Regardless of why it happens, that's still a problem.

The point is that you are trying to paint the Dalish tribal system with exactly the same brush as Tevinter because it's convenient for your beliefs, and it's a false picture.  In Tevinter, slaves and subjects essentially had no rights, while it's clear that Dalish do.  Clans meet other clans all the time, and you can leave one clan to join another.  Not only that but it's clear that the keeper's clan is not absolute.  Is the keeper generally the recognized leader?  Sure.  Is that power absolute?  The game evidence we have at least strongly suggests that it isn't.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Velanna was no longer part of her clan.  Merrill was.  Big difference.  That means that Velanna's exile is not entirely self-imposed but also the result of the judgement of the clan.

Vellana and Ishmael (or whatshername) disagreed on something and Vellana chose to leave the clan because of it. despite the Keeper wanting her First to stay. The other elves hated her because she separated the clan and lead her side to destruction..
Merril and Marethari disagreed on something and Merril chose to leave the clan despite the Keeper wanting her First to stay. The other elves hated her because they feared she would bring back the Taint or worse and because she was a blood mage.
There is no difference other than the cause of the disagreement.

Actually you do choose to be possessed (and Merethari certainly did) except for very extreme circumstances (which don't apply here).  So that certainly qualifies even by your definition.

It's not "my definition". It's everyone's, it's how the legal system defines it.
And when you're possessed you stop being "you". The demon takes over and you are thus unable to rule. It's not an impeachment.

Sure they can.  In fact you hear plenty of criticism of Meretheri by Act III, and you also here critical things about Zathrien in DAO.  They just haven't reached critical mass.  In fact Mahariel's father was a keeper and he most certainly could (and was) sanctioned by the other elders.

The Chief Crafter himself is leaving, that is critical and he certainly would have attempted some legal manner to force Marethari to change her ruling before deciding to leave had the Dalish had any to speak of.
They can criticise the decisions of their Keepers but there is no way to legally influence or change them.

Personal insult.  There is a difference between criticising one's logic and position, and insulting the person.  There is a definate line there.

"Irrational" is a personal insult".

The Dalish are clearly not autocratic, and the keepers are lead because they know the ancient lore.  Just being a mage does NOT grant you status or leadership position, so it's not a magocracy.

They are, on both accounts.
The Keeper's decision can't be legally affected or changed in any way and s/he serves for life. That makes it an autocracy.
Only the mages may be keepers, that makes it a magocracy.

When she says that the Vaterral don't normally attack Dalish, she has no reason not to be completely truthful.  This is a here and now observation not a dispute about comparitive history or mythology.  At most she might be mistaken, but there is no reason to think she is.

There are many reasons that can lead to an animal not attacking a large group of armed people. It doesn't necessarely indicates a supernatural explanation.

What I am saying is that there are enough exeptional aspects of that scene that the lore we can glean from it is limited at best.

Nothing in the lore indicates that dragon bones or maleficars can negativelly affects animals simply by being there and there is also nothing that leads us to believe Morrigan did anything to that varterral.

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
The point is that the Templar supporters are trying to paint (or seem to) as some sort of Magister-lite dictatorship that is dominated by magic and that isn't the case.  In fact keeper's almost never use magic (and almost never publically) and being mages is the least important part of being a keeper.  The magic is important only because it reflects a heritage that all elvhan once had.

No, it's not. The point is not whether the Keepers constantly abuse their autorithy or whether they can only reach a leadership position by doing what the Tevinters do: kill everyone higher up the ladder.
The point is that should a Keeper decide to abuse her authority; such as Marethari did by being unable to let Merril go; the other elves can do nothing other than accept the decisions of the Keeper or abandon the clan. That is a problem.
And the other point is that only mages can become Keeper. Regardless of why it happens, that's still a problem.

The point is that you are trying to paint the Dalish tribal system with exactly the same brush as Tevinter because it's convenient for your beliefs, and it's a false picture.  In Tevinter, slaves and subjects essentially had no rights, while it's clear that Dalish do.  Clans meet other clans all the time, and you can leave one clan to join another.  Not only that but it's clear that the keeper's clan is not absolute.  Is the keeper generally the recognized leader?  Sure.  Is that power absolute?  The game evidence we have at least strongly suggests that it isn't.

-Polaris

When have I ever said dalish don't, usually, have rigths? How about you adress my position rather than simply assume what it is?
You keep saying that the decisions of the Keeper aren't absolute but you still haven't presented a single evidence of a situation where the keeper wanted to do something but the elves under him forced him to do something else.

[BlueMagitek]

IanPolaris wrote...

You assume impeachment involves a fancy trial.  It can, but it needn't.  It was clear that the clan was starting to wonder about Merethari's wisdom in staying.  The point is that the Templar supporters are trying to paint (or seem to) as some sort of Magister-lite dictatorship that is dominated by magic and that isn't the case.  In fact keeper's almost never use magic (and almost never publically) and being mages is the least important part of being a keeper.  The magic is important only because it reflects a heritage that all elvhan once had.

In the case of DA2 almost certainly not unless you actually believe that Merethari actually ordered her hunters in to deliberately die.  It's not just an ancient creature, it's an avatar of the old gods (at least that's the theory).

-Polaris

Not really.  The Dalish situation looks like it is.  The Keeper (a mage only position) has, if not absolute, a lot of power, with no checks or balances.  It's even difficult to contact other Keepers who might be able to do something due to their nomadic ways.  And when the Keeper does do magic, it is quite possible for the clan to pay for it.  Zathy, for example, cursed the humans with lycanthropy.  I don't recall this being a decision by that clan.  The clan did pay for it, though.  When one of the requirements for being a Keeper is being a mage, it is an important part of the role.  It didn't matter that Zathy's first was a city elf, or that she didn't have the most amazing Dalish roots.  She was a mage, so she was already in the running for it.

If murder and running away are the checks and balances, that really isn't a system of impeachment. 

From Dalish lore, which is slightly less reliable than the drunken ramblings of some of the people who work down at the docks.  It'll attack a Dalish Warden, it attacks Dalish elves, it attacks Ariane.  I'm guessing that it really isn't a god given Dalish Protector as much as it is something that happened to be pissed off at a dragon that one time.

[dragonflight288]

When have I ever said dalish don't, usually, have rigths? How about you adress my position rather than simply assume what it is?
You keep saying that the decisions of the Keeper aren't absolute but you still haven't presented a single evidence of a situation where the keeper wanted to do something but the elves under him forced him to do something else.

Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

[Insaner Robot]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

Does anyone know the tale behind that? I've been trying to look that up but the wiki only states the following:

"The patriarch of the Mahariel family was the former Keeper of the Sabrae clan prior to Marethari. It is stated through conversation with clan-mate Ashalle during the Dalish origin that the Dalish Warden's father and mother--a hunter for another clan--fell in love in somewhat controversial circumstances. Indeed, it is possible that were he not the Keeper at the time the Dalish Warden's father might not have been allowed to bond with his lover at all."

Sorry to jump in with this, but I read some of this conversation and just grew curious about it.

[IanPolaris]

Insaner Robot wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

Does anyone know the tale behind that? I've been trying to look that up but the wiki only states the following:

"The patriarch of the Mahariel family was the former Keeper of the Sabrae clan prior to Marethari. It is stated through conversation with clan-mate Ashalle during the Dalish origin that the Dalish Warden's father and mother--a hunter for another clan--fell in love in somewhat controversial circumstances. Indeed, it is possible that were he not the Keeper at the time the Dalish Warden's father might not have been allowed to bond with his lover at all."

Sorry to jump in with this, but I read some of this conversation and just grew curious about it.

If he wasn't that means he was deposed from being keeper which confirms what I've been saying all along.  What some of you fail to appreciate is that the Dalish are largely a tribal culture at this point, and many of the checks and balances aren't written down.  They exist in tradition, and unwritten assumptions and expectations of everyone involved.  This works in such societies because the governmental unit (the tribe) is so small.  Even if a chief may in a tribe hypothetically have autocratic power, in fact and in practice they almost never do simply because everyone knows everyone else (possible with tribes of a hundred people or less).

Trying to paint the Dalish Keepers as magister-like autocrats in the Tevinter style is not only unfair but inaccurate.

-Polaris

[DPSSOC]

dragonflight288 wrote...

When have I ever said dalish don't, usually, have rigths? How about you adress my position rather than simply assume what it is?
You keep saying that the decisions of the Keeper aren't absolute but you still haven't presented a single evidence of a situation where the keeper wanted to do something but the elves under him forced him to do something else.

Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

He didn't though.  Just looked up the conversation you have about that, the only conversation mind you.  The elders of the Dalish Warden's mother's clan didn't approve of the match, so she and his father met in secret.  Durring one such meeting they were attacked by bandits and the Dalish Warden's father was killed, his mother severely wounded.  She managed to cling to life long enough to give birth to the Warden and then disappeared into the night.

IanPolaris wrote...

Insaner Robot wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

Does anyone know the tale behind that? I've been trying to look that up but the wiki only states the following:

"The patriarch of the Mahariel family was the former Keeper of the Sabrae clan prior to Marethari. It is stated through conversation with clan-mate Ashalle during the Dalish origin that the Dalish Warden's father and mother--a hunter for another clan--fell in love in somewhat controversial circumstances. Indeed, it is possible that were he not the Keeper at the time the Dalish Warden's father might not have been allowed to bond with his lover at all."

Sorry to jump in with this, but I read some of this conversation and just grew curious about it.

If he wasn't that means he was deposed from being keeper which confirms what I've been saying all along.

Wasn't deposed, killed by bandits.

IanPolaris wrote...
What some of you fail to appreciate is that the Dalish are largely a tribal culture at this point, and many of the checks and balances aren't written down.  They exist in tradition, and unwritten assumptions and expectations of everyone involved.  This works in such societies because the governmental unit (the tribe) is so small.  Even if a chief may in a tribe hypothetically have autocratic power, in fact and in practice they almost never do simply because everyone knows everyone else (possible with tribes of a hundred people or less).

Trying to paint the Dalish Keepers as magister-like autocrats in the Tevinter style is not only unfair but inaccurate.

-Polaris

Nobody's painting them as magister-like.  We're painting them as autocrats because we have two inarguable examples of them behaving like autocrats.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if any of the other elders appeared to have a say in what the clan does but in none of the examples we have is that the case.

Zathrian dictated that the hunters couldn't hunt until the werewolves were dealt with, sensible surely but if what you're saying is true and Zathrian doesn't have absolute authourity over the clan that's not his call to make.  Not to mention that everyone, absolutely everyone including the Hahren and Chief Crafter tell you to talk to Zathrian about anything important.  All of the elders of Marethari's clan wanted to leave Sundermount, surely if Marethari didn't have absolute authourity that would have been enough to move the clan, but the clan didn't move.  Instead the elders were forced to just leave.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 03 février 2013 - 06:06 .

[Insaner Robot]

IanPolaris wrote...

If he wasn't that means he was deposed from being keeper which confirms what I've been saying all along.  What some of you fail to appreciate is that the Dalish are largely a tribal culture at this point, and many of the checks and balances aren't written down.  They exist in tradition, and unwritten assumptions and expectations of everyone involved.  This works in such societies because the governmental unit (the tribe) is so small.  Even if a chief may in a tribe hypothetically have autocratic power, in fact and in practice they almost never do simply because everyone knows everyone else (possible with tribes of a hundred people or less).

Trying to paint the Dalish Keepers as magister-like autocrats in the Tevinter style is not only unfair but inaccurate.

-Polaris

When did I categorise keepers as magisters? I thought I asked a question. In fact I haven't yet even suggested which side I'm on, or if I even have a side.

Modifié par Insaner Robot, 03 février 2013 - 06:10 .

[IanPolaris]

Insaner Robot wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If he wasn't that means he was deposed from being keeper which confirms what I've been saying all along.  What some of you fail to appreciate is that the Dalish are largely a tribal culture at this point, and many of the checks and balances aren't written down.  They exist in tradition, and unwritten assumptions and expectations of everyone involved.  This works in such societies because the governmental unit (the tribe) is so small.  Even if a chief may in a tribe hypothetically have autocratic power, in fact and in practice they almost never do simply because everyone knows everyone else (possible with tribes of a hundred people or less).

Trying to paint the Dalish Keepers as magister-like autocrats in the Tevinter style is not only unfair but inaccurate.

-Polaris

When did I categorise keepers as magisters? I thought I asked a question. In fact I haven't yet even suggested which side I'm on, or if I even have a side.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I wasn't referring to you. I was refering to MisterJB and some others who seem to want to paint the Dalish Keepers with the same brush as Tevinter magisters in order to justify the circle system.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

When have I ever said dalish don't, usually, have rigths? How about you adress my position rather than simply assume what it is?
You keep saying that the decisions of the Keeper aren't absolute but you still haven't presented a single evidence of a situation where the keeper wanted to do something but the elves under him forced him to do something else.

Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

He didn't though.  Just looked up the conversation you have about that, the only conversation mind you.  The elders of the Dalish Warden's mother's clan didn't approve of the match, so she and his father met in secret.  Durring one such meeting they were attacked by bandits and the Dalish Warden's father was killed, his mother severely wounded.  She managed to cling to life long enough to give birth to the Warden and then disappeared into the night.

Yes he did.  Otherwise he would have married her openly and told the clan to lump it.  The fact they met in secret IS bowing to the will of the other elders.

IanPolaris wrote...

Insaner Robot wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

Does anyone know the tale behind that? I've been trying to look that up but the wiki only states the following:

"The patriarch of the Mahariel family was the former Keeper of the Sabrae clan prior to Marethari. It is stated through conversation with clan-mate Ashalle during the Dalish origin that the Dalish Warden's father and mother--a hunter for another clan--fell in love in somewhat controversial circumstances. Indeed, it is possible that were he not the Keeper at the time the Dalish Warden's father might not have been allowed to bond with his lover at all."

Sorry to jump in with this, but I read some of this conversation and just grew curious about it.

If he wasn't that means he was deposed from being keeper which confirms what I've been saying all along.

Wasn't deposed, killed by bandits.

Actually it isn't clear if he was keeper when he was killed which is what I think Insaner Robot is refering to.  If he wasn't then he had to have been deposed as keeper at some point prior which would back my basic point.

IanPolaris wrote...
What some of you fail to appreciate is that the Dalish are largely a tribal culture at this point, and many of the checks and balances aren't written down.  They exist in tradition, and unwritten assumptions and expectations of everyone involved.  This works in such societies because the governmental unit (the tribe) is so small.  Even if a chief may in a tribe hypothetically have autocratic power, in fact and in practice they almost never do simply because everyone knows everyone else (possible with tribes of a hundred people or less).

Trying to paint the Dalish Keepers as magister-like autocrats in the Tevinter style is not only unfair but inaccurate.

-Polaris

Nobody's painting them as magister-like.  We're painting them as autocrats because we have two inarguable examples of them behaving like autocrats.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if any of the other elders appeared to have a say in what the clan does but in none of the examples we have is that the case.

Actually if you track this back, that's exactly what you and (especially) MisterJB are arguing.  You are saying that all mages are bad because if free they will rule by virtue of their magic, and then reject the Dalish Keepers as yet another magocracy when in fact the available lore indicates something very different.

The old Tevinter system is being used to justify the circle, and some are trying to paint the Dalish in the same light to keep them from being used as a counter example and it doesn't wash. 

In fact neither Merethari nor Zathrein behave like autocrats.  They are treated as the most important of elders but that is very different from an autocracy.

Zathrian dictated that the hunters couldn't hunt until the werewolves were dealt with, sensible surely but if what you're saying is true and Zathrian doesn't have absolute authourity over the clan that's not his call to make.  Not to mention that everyone, absolutely everyone including the Hahren and Chief Crafter tell you to talk to Zathrian about anything important.  All of the elders of Marethari's clan wanted to leave Sundermount, surely if Marethari didn't have absolute authourity that would have been enough to move the clan, but the clan didn't move.  Instead the elders were forced to just leave.

Zathrian was Hahren as well as keeper, and why would the Chief Hunter disagree with such an obviously sensible directive (don't hunt in a forest with dangerous werewolves).  Even then if you talk to Cammen and do his quest, it is clear that the keeper might "forbid" something but it doesn't have the force of autocratic law.  Dalish can (and sometimes do) disobey.  The Dalish are a tribal culture and you seem to fail to see how that makes a difference in your apparent eagerness to paint them with an anti-mage brush.

-Polaris

[Insaner Robot]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I wasn't referring to you. I was refering to MisterJB and some others who seem to want to paint the Dalish Keepers with the same brush as Tevinter magisters in order to justify the circle system.

-Polaris

No problem, misunderstandings happen on the internet, particularly when your in a heated debate.

Edited addition:

Keepers do seem to have a great deal of influence within their respective clans, possibly due to a combination of respect and tradition for their role as lorekeepers and holders of potential wisdom and magical power.

But to my knowledge we've only encountered two clans and two keepers, both in extreme circumstances. Now while we can observe in game that Zathrian and Marethari seem to go largely unchallenged, we can't assume from these two cases that is always the case. Both had been in those roles for some time and were well repsected (particularly Zathrian, whom I believe was keeper for hundreds of years and was hoped by some to have 'reaquired' the elves so called 'immortality'). We can theorise that a new or younger keeper such as Lanaya may not have been able to hold a clan at Sundermount the way Marethari did or at the mercy of werewolves the way Zathrian did, not without the clan as whole or respected individuals such as master crafters and hunters bringing forward the issue and pushing to move the clan.

Unfortunately the scientist in me proceeds to bash me on the head and scream in my ear that two observational groups aren't enough.

Maybe in future media (games, books, comics) we'll have more opportunity to explore dalish culture. Until then it must be a good thing that the subject can create such passionate and mostly freindly discussions right?

If my spelling or punctuation is awful at the moment I apologise, I'm currently battling a bout of laberynthitis which causes motion sickness and vertigo even while not moving, so I'm not entirely focused (although I do have two weeks free of classes and lectures )

Modifié par Insaner Robot, 03 février 2013 - 08:15 .

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

No, because the elders who disaproved of the match belonged to the clan of the Warden's mother, not the father and she wasn't a Keeper. That Keepers don't have authority over the elves of the other clans, doesn't change the fact that they do have supreme authority over the elves of their own clan.

[dragonflight288]

Insaner Robot wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I wasn't referring to you. I was refering to MisterJB and some others who seem to want to paint the Dalish Keepers with the same brush as Tevinter magisters in order to justify the circle system.

-Polaris

No problem, misunderstandings happen on the internet, particularly when your in a heated debate.

Edited addition:

Keepers do seem to have a great deal of influence within their respective clans, possibly due to a combination of respect and tradition for their role as lorekeepers and holders of potential wisdom and magical power.

But to my knowledge we've only encountered two clans and two keepers, both in extreme circumstances. Now while we can observe in game that Zathrian and Marethari seem to go largely unchallenged, we can't assume from these two cases that is always the case. Both had been in those roles for some time and were well repsected (particularly Zathrian, whom I believe was keeper for hundreds of years and was hoped by some to have 'reaquired' the elves so called 'immortality'). We can theorise that a new or younger keeper such as Lanaya may not have been able to hold a clan at Sundermount the way Marethari did or at the mercy of werewolves the way Zathrian did, not without the clan as whole or respected individuals such as master crafters and hunters bringing forward the issue and pushing to move the clan.

Unfortunately the scientist in me proceeds to bash me on the head and scream in my ear that two observational groups aren't enough.

Maybe in future media (games, books, comics) we'll have more opportunity to explore dalish culture. Until then it must be a good thing that the subject can create such passionate and mostly freindly discussions right?

If my spelling or punctuation is awful at the moment I apologise, I'm currently battling a bout of laberynthitis which causes motion sickness and vertigo even while not moving, so I'm not entirely focused (although I do have two weeks free of classes and lectures )

You just pretty much summed up my entire opinion in a nutshell. We know there are many Dalish clans, and they meet once every ten years to discuss new discoveries of their heritage and to share knowledge, and event to switch out clan-members to prevent in-breeding. We have two examples of two clans in very rough situations with a very rough, and admittedly biased, history. That is nowhere near a large enough sample size to discuss Dalish culture and who's in charge with 100% surety.

Slightly veering off subject, but I hope the parallel is apparent, but let me talk about pirates.

On the open ocean, the pirates technically followed the orders and lead of the captain. But his word wasn't law and there are many documented cases of pirates going into mutiny and marooning their captains if they didn't like the way things were being handled or if they felt they weren't getting enough booty. Only when they were going into battle, on a raid, or were in extreme circumstances (like a storm) they would turn to the captain and listen with utmost assurity and follow his lead because the captain had the experience and knowledge to hopefully get them out of it.

I believe the Keepers are similar to these captains. We have seen two dalish clans in the midst of horrible circumstances, with highly respected Keepers who have guided their clans for awhile (a VERY long while in Zathrian's case.) We can't call them a magocracy if they listen to their Keeper during stressful times like dealing with werewolves or losing their halla close to one of the most extreme cities in all of Thedas.

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
Mahariel's father being a Keeper and bowing to the will of the elders is a perfectly legitimate situation.

No, because the elders who disaproved of the match belonged to the clan of the Warden's mother, not the father and she wasn't a Keeper. That Keepers don't have authority over the elves of the other clans, doesn't change the fact that they do have supreme authority over the elves of their own clan.

If what you said was true, then the Keeper of the mother's clan could've just gone "Meh, let them be" if he took issue with it and then Mama and Papa Mahariel would've gotten married.

Granted, we don't know if he did or didn't take issue with it, but still.

[DPSSOC]

IanPolaris wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
He didn't though.  Just looked up the conversation you have about that, the only conversation mind you.  The elders of the Dalish Warden's mother's clan didn't approve of the match, so she and his father met in secret.  Durring one such meeting they were attacked by bandits and the Dalish Warden's father was killed, his mother severely wounded.  She managed to cling to life long enough to give birth to the Warden and then disappeared into the night.

Yes he did.  Otherwise he would have married her openly and told the clan to lump it.  The fact they met in secret IS bowing to the will of the other elders.

In so far as me sneaking into my girlfriend's house because her parents don't want me to see her is bowing to their will I suppose.

IanPolaris wrote...

Wasn't deposed, killed by bandits.

Actually it isn't clear if he was keeper when he was killed which is what I think Insaner Robot is refering to.  If he wasn't then he had to have been deposed as keeper at some point prior which would back my basic point.

There's zero indication he wasn't Keeper up until the moment of his death.  The issue was with the Warden's mother's clan, not the father's.  Furthermore if the father's clan had enough of a problem with the relationship that they'd depose him as Keeper I doubt they would have nursed his widow and raised their child.

IanPolaris wrote...

Nobody's painting them as magister-like.  We're painting them as autocrats because we have two inarguable examples of them behaving like autocrats.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if any of the other elders appeared to have a say in what the clan does but in none of the examples we have is that the case.

Actually if you track this back, that's exactly what you and (especially) MisterJB are arguing.  You are saying that all mages are bad because if free they will rule by virtue of their magic, and then reject the Dalish Keepers as yet another magocracy when in fact the available lore indicates something very different.

I have tracked it back, you were the first one to bring up Tevinter.  I have said, and I can quote myself if you like, that this is not about mages or magic it's about politics and ultimately comes down to a disagreement on definition.  JB and I consider the Keepers to be an autocratic position because we've seen two clans with no example of how a Keeper's decision can be reversed short of killing and replacing the Keeper, the Dalish options appear to be deal with it or leave.  Since only mages can be Keepers this would make it a mage autocracy (magocracy).

JB and I have also said, and I can quote both of us, that whether or not this system is a problem most of the time is irrellevant, the system still is what it is.  We're not arguing that the Keepers are all tyrannical monsters ordering their clans around like slaves; we're arguing that if a Keeper can unilaterally make decisions for the whole clan, and the only recourse any member of the clan (elder or not) has if they disagree is to leave, deal with it, or kill the Keeper, than what are they if not an autocrat?

I'll say it again the Keepers would be a bad system even if they weren't mages.

IanPolaris wrote...

Zathrian dictated that the hunters couldn't hunt until the werewolves were dealt with, sensible surely but if what you're saying is true and Zathrian doesn't have absolute authourity over the clan that's not his call to make.  Not to mention that everyone, absolutely everyone including the Hahren and Chief Crafter tell you to talk to Zathrian about anything important.  All of the elders of Marethari's clan wanted to leave Sundermount, surely if Marethari didn't have absolute authourity that would have been enough to move the clan, but the clan didn't move.  Instead the elders were forced to just leave.

Zathrian was Hahren as well as keeper, and why would the Chief Hunter disagree with such an obviously sensible directive (don't hunt in a forest with dangerous werewolves).

Wasn't the Hahren the storyteller at the fire?  Isn't that what a Hahren is, a historian?  Come to think of it why do you need a historian and a keeper of lore that seems to be a case of massive overlap.  Anyway like I said it is a sensible course of action but if Zathrian doesn't have total authourity over the clan it's not his place to make that decision.

IanPolaris wrote...
Even then if you talk to Cammen and do his quest, it is clear that the keeper might "forbid" something but it doesn't have the force of autocratic law.  Dalish can (and sometimes do) disobey.

The ability to disobey doesn't mean it's not an autocracy, it just means the Dalish aren't lobotomized.  The force of any law, regardless of whether it's autocratic, democratic, theocratic, etc. is limited by enforceability.  The Keeper has forbid hunters from entering the forest.  Now realistically he can't keep an eye on all of them at all times so his ability to keep hunters from going anyway is limited.  However he can punish them if and when they come back.  It's still law, Cammen would still be punished for disobeying.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Hahren is the guy who knows the history of the Dalish people, the Keeper is the one who knows all the old rituals and tradition. Of course there will be some sort of overlap on these two professions. Hahren however is no posistion of authority.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Hahren is the guy who knows the history of the Dalish people

Not strictly accurate. Hahren is an Elven word that means elder, and the clans have numerous elders so they're all really Hahrens.

[LobselVith8]

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's an example of Ian pointing out that the Dalish clan isn't a dictatorship, where everyone capitulates to the rule of one single person (which seems to be the case for many human societies where Kings and Queens rule over the people).

 
Except it doesn't establish that at all.  Even dictators have advisors.  A dictator may delegate running the military to his generals, but he's still the one in charge, if he makes a decision it overrides that of the generals.  We see know evidence of a Keeper's decision being overridden by anybody, but we do have two examples of a Keeper overriding others.

I respectfully disagree; I believe it does establish that. From what we've seen of Dalish society, there isn't a "civil war" over a difference of ideas, like we see between Arl Eamon and Teyrn Loghain; we know Velanna left the clan with some others of her own free will, because she disagreed with Keeper Ilshae; we know Merrill left the clan because of her difference of opinion with Keeper Marethari about the Eluvian, and that the clan entrusted Marethari to the point where they believed her over Merrill (even though Marethari doesn't seem to have conducted any research or study into the ancient technology of the Eluvian).

If the Keeper is prevented from being with someone he wants to be with, then I don't see how the Keeper has the absolute authority the pro-Chantry and pro-templar players are claiming the Keeper has. The Dalish clans are clearly no the same as the magocracy of the Magisters brutally lording over the enslaved mages and non-mages of the Tevinter Imperium.

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The backstory of the Dalish Warden is another example of the elders refusing to sanction a relationship between the Keeper and a hunter, despite the former's station in the clan.

You're conflating didn't with couldn't.  The Dalish Warden's parents could have said, "To hell with you we're getting married." but they didn't, because the Dalish need to maintain smooth relations within and between clans, if they start squabbling amongst themselves the humans will take advantage.  Even if they couldn't you're mixing social rule with political.  The elders can say two elves can't get married because of reasons, but again we never see evidence that they can over rule a Keeper's decision with regards to moving the clan or staying put for example.

Because we have only gotten a glimpse into Dalish society. Since we met 1 to 2 clans in Origins (and we meet the same clan from the Dalish Origin in Dragon Age II), we've mostly gotten a human perspective, which doesn't seem to change with the "human only" approach that Bioware has taken with the Dragon Age franchise. I think it's a damn shame.

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Having the authority to say "no" to the Keeper disproves the idea that Keepers are little more than dictators of the clan; in other words, it's not a magocracy like the Tevinter Imperium. In fact, Merrill's refusal to abide by Marethari's (baseless) opinion of the Eluvian, and her decision to leave the clan (which was also done by Velanna, Feynriel's mother Arianni, and Zevran's mother), shows that the elves can freely leave the clan, and go on their own path.

That doesn't mean they're not dictators, it means they aren't brutal, that they're by and large benevolent, but they aren't brutal.  You can disagree with a Keeper but as your examples show you either live with their decisions regardless or leave.  If you disagree with the Keeper and your only options are to leave or, if you can gain enough support, kill them that's a dictatorship.  If there's no one else you can appeal to to reverse a Keeper's decision they are an absolute authourity.

As Merrill points out, the Keeper is killed by the clan if he (or she) becomes an abomination. It's not as though the clan kills the Keeper if he (or she) has a difference of opinion over what their favorite color is.

While it's been stressed over and over again that the Keeper isn't the only one who makes decisions in the clan, I think the fact that people can leave the clan shows far more freedom than any mage in Andrastian society will ever experience.

DPSSOC wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

An Impeachment is not a coup d'etat. Keepers can very clearly be impeached, and the game verifies this.

-Polaris

I don't think it's an impeachment if it requires murder. I believe the word for that is regicide.

I'll ask again if the only way for the entire clan to get a Keeper's decision reversed is to convince them to reverse it or violently remove them from their position how do they not have absolute authourity?  If a Keeper can just declare, "We're leaving now," and all a Halla Herder can say is, "We really shouldn't." the Keeper is the one who decides when they leave.  If the Hahren, Chief Crafter, Chief Hunter, and Halla Herder can demand the clan move on and the Keeper can just say, "No." the Keeper has absolute authourity.

You seem to be citing the example of the Sabrae clan, but we don't know if anyone (besides the exile Merrill) publicly contested Marethari's decision to remain at Sundermount.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I respectfully disagree; I believe it does establish that. From what we've seen of Dalish society, there isn't a "civil war" over a difference of ideas, like we see between Arl Eamon and Teyrn Loghain; we know Velanna left the clan with some others of her own free will, because she disagreed with Keeper Ilshae; we know Merrill left the clan because of her difference of opinion with Keeper Marethari about the Eluvian, and that the clan entrusted Marethari to the point where they believed her over Merrill (even though Marethari doesn't seem to have conducted any research or study into the ancient technology of the Eluvian).

If the Keeper is prevented from being with someone he wants to be with, then I don't see how the Keeper has the absolute authority the pro-Chantry and pro-templar players are claiming the Keeper has. The Dalish clans are clearly no the same as the magocracy of the Magisters brutally lording over the enslaved mages and non-mages of the Tevinter Imperium.

Neither I nor DPSSOC have ever compared the Dalish to Tevinter. You're the ones who keep bringing it up.

What we are doing is analyzing dalish society by itself and the conclusion we have reached is that while the Keeper can entrust several other elves with important tasks much like any system of government does, should the keeper decide on something that the other elves appear to disagree with, there is not a single example of a legal system that can override the Keeper's decision regardless of how harmful they obviously are.
We do have plenty of exmaples of elves either suffering through it or abandoning their society which I shouldn't have to tell you, it's not good.

Because we have only gotten a glimpse into Dalish society. Since we met 1 to 2 clans in Origins (and we meet the same clan from the Dalish Origin in Dragon Age II), we've mostly gotten a human perspective, which doesn't seem to change with the "human only" approach that Bioware has taken with the Dragon Age franchise. I think it's a damn shame.

Three clans, in fact. But we must argue with basis on the info shown to us, not imagine that other dalish clans are less autocratic.

As Merrill points out, the Keeper is killed by the clan if he (or she) becomes an abomination. It's not as though the clan kills the Keeper if he (or she) has a difference of opinion over what their favorite color is.

While it's been stressed over and over again that the Keeper isn't the only one who makes decisions in the clan, I think the fact that people can leave the clan shows far more freedom than any mage in Andrastian society will ever experience.

Freedom of movement is not the only sort of freedom there is.
When Grand Enchanter Fiona called for a separation from the Chantry, Wynne convinved the other Enchanters to vote against her and the Circle remained at peace. This proves that the leader of the Magi doesn't have the right to, say, start a war against the wishes of the majority of the people s/he represents which the Keepers clearly by how Zathrian just promises to fight the Darkspawn without consulting any of the Harens first.

You seem to be citing the example of the Sabrae clan, but we don't know if anyone (besides the exile Merrill) publicly contested Marethari's decision to remain at Sundermount.

We do know that. The Chief Crafter is leaving and we can safely assume he would first use any legal system they have to override Marethari's decisions before deciding to pack his stuff and leave. We can hear ambient dialogue in Act 3 that suggests other elves are quite disgruntled over the fact they have stayed in the same spot for seven years. You'd think these elves would have supporter the Crafter whose name I can't remember.

Modifié par MisterJB, 05 février 2013 - 06:08 .

[Harbinger of Hope]

thats1evildude wrote...

Mobuse wrote...

...and we don't talk about it afterwards????

Did I miss something or is it a "They attack us, oh no, let's kill them all" experience for everybody....

You have to go to Merrill's house afterwards to talk about it.

This. IIRC, she is rather broken up over it too. But, like some have pointed out, she can still engage in funny party banter on the way back, which can kinda break immersion.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

Neither I nor DPSSOC have ever compared the Dalish to Tevinter. You're the ones who keep bringing it up.

What we are doing is analyzing dalish society by itself and the conclusion we have reached is that while the Keeper can entrust several other elves with important tasks much like any system of government does, should the keeper decide on something that the other elves appear to disagree with, there is not a single example of a legal system that can override the Keeper's decision regardless of how harmful they obviously are.
We do have plenty of exmaples of elves either suffering through it or abandoning their society which I shouldn't have to tell you, it's not good.

We don't have an example of the Keeper overriding the authority of the other elders; we do have an example of the former Keeper of the Sabrae clan capitulating to the ruling of the elders. We don't even have an example of anyone from the Sabrae clan publicly contesting Marethari's decision for the Sabrae clan to remain at Sundermount for several years, except for Merrill.

MisterJB wrote...

Three clans, in fact. But we must argue with basis on the info shown to us, not imagine that other dalish clans are less autocratic.

We meet a handful of Velanna's clan in Awakening, but not an entire clan - as we do in Origins and Dragon Age II. And the information we have shows that the former Keeper of the Sabrae clan was denied from being with someone he wanted to have a life with, because the elders contested the union between him (the Keeper) and a warrior.

MisterJB wrote...

Freedom of movement is not the only sort of freedom there is.
When Grand Enchanter Fiona called for a separation from the Chantry, Wynne convinved the other Enchanters to vote against her and the Circle remained at peace. This proves that the leader of the Magi doesn't have the right to, say, start a war against the wishes of the majority of the people s/he represents which the Keepers clearly by how Zathrian just promises to fight the Darkspawn without consulting any of the Harens first.

Except the treaty obligated the Dalish to lend aid to the Grey Wardens, so Zathrian or Lanaya (depending on who the Keeper is at the time) didn't need to consult anyone, because they were fulfilling their promise to lend aid to the Wardens against a threat that endangered all life on Thedas. That's the reason why the messenger informs The Warden that the Dalish have called on other clans to join them in combating the darkspawn horde.

MisterJB wrote...

We do know that. The Chief Crafter is leaving and we can safely assume he would first use any legal system they have to override Marethari's decisions before deciding to pack his stuff and leave. We can hear ambient dialogue in Act 3 that suggests other elves are quite disgruntled over the fact they have stayed in the same spot for seven years. You'd think these elves would have supporter the Crafter whose name I can't remember. 

Yet all those same elves will attack Hawke and Merrill to exact revenge on Marethari's behalf, despite being disgruntled over remaining in Sundermount for several years. The same elves who despised Merrill because Marethari's opinion was the WoG to them.

And my prior point stands - we have no explicit evidence that shows any of the elders publicly contested the decision to remain at Sundermount. We can't "safely assume" that Master Ilen or anyone else argued with Marethari over the decision for the Sabrae clan to remain at Sundermount when we have no evidence to support that.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
we do have an example of the former Keeper of the Sabrae clan capitulating to the ruling of the elders.

Those elders belonged to the clan of the Warden's mother, not his father. Logically, the Keeper doesn't have authority over the elves of other clans but that is all that situation proves.

We meet a handful of Velanna's clan in Awakening, but not an entire clan - as we do in Origins and Dragon Age II.

No but we do hear Vellana tell of yet another split in dalish society. Altough, to be fair, the Keeper had support in this case.

Except the treaty obligated the Dalish to lend aid to the Grey Wardens, so Zathrian or Lanaya (depending on who the Keeper is at the time) didn't need to consult anyone, because they were fulfilling their promise to lend aid to the Wardens against a threat that endangered all life on Thedas. That's the reason why the messenger informs The Warden that the Dalish have called on other clans to join them in combating the darkspawn horde.

Marethari didn't feel compelled to offer assistance. Probrably because her clan did not need.
The treaty was made centuries ago and the grey wardens are in no position to punish the elves for breaking it. The only reason Zathrian; and Bhelen/Harrowmont; and Gregoir/Irving; accept to deliver assistance is because they need it themselves.
However, some of the elders might argue that there is no point in curing their hunters just to send them to fight darkspawn and would disagree of Zathrian's decision had he bothered to consult them.

Yet all those same elves will attack Hawke and Merrill to exact revenge on Marethari's behalf, despite being disgruntled over remaining in Sundermount for several years. The same elves who despised Merrill because Marethari's opinion was the WoG to them.

Therein lies the problem, really. Dalish elves are almost conditioned to obey the Keepers, regardless of how much sense s/he makes.

And my prior point stands - we have no explicit evidence that shows any of the elders publicly contested the decision to remain at Sundermount. We can't "safely assume" that Master Ilen or anyone else argued with Marethari over the decision for the Sabrae clan to remain at Sundermount when we have no evidence to support that.

It's illogical to assume that Ilen's first option would be to abandon his clan rather than approach Marethari with his concerns and abandon only after they were refuted.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Except the treaty obligated the Dalish to lend aid to the Grey Wardens, so Zathrian or Lanaya (depending on who the Keeper is at the time) didn't need to consult anyone, because they were fulfilling their promise to lend aid to the Wardens against a threat that endangered all life on Thedas. That's the reason why the messenger informs The Warden that the Dalish have called on other clans to join them in combating the darkspawn horde.

Marethari didn't feel compelled to offer assistance. Probrably because her clan did not need.
The treaty was made centuries ago and the grey wardens are in no position to punish the elves for breaking it. The only reason Zathrian; and Bhelen/Harrowmont; and Gregoir/Irving; accept to deliver assistance is because they need it themselves.
However, some of the elders might argue that there is no point in curing their hunters just to send them to fight darkspawn and would disagree of Zathrian's decision had he bothered to consult them.

Actually if you played the Dalish background, you find out that Merethari feels very strongly that her clan and all the Dalish ARE obligated to fulfill their treaty requirements.  In the case of the Dalish background she tells you and Duncan this explicitly as she sends you off.  Presumably in other games, her clan simply wasn't in range to provide assistance.

Not only that, but if you talk with the other Dalish both in your clan (if Dalish) or in Zathrian's clan, you find there is wide spread approval of helping the wardens regardless of what they think about Shemlen.

-Polaris