344 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

Few wars end in genocide.

 

More then enough in our own history do to the point where i can safely say it happens enough that whatever occurred to the backwood skulkers wasn't anything special.

 

Mass enslavement, also not a rare outcome in war.

[Mirrman70]

The Dalish did try to close their borders even before the Blight. Anybody would rationally see that as a sign of hostility and/or arrogance. neither trait is considered positive for a nation whose people have a bad history with others.

[LobselVith8]

Just because there is two POVs does not mean they are both right. One is wrong and devs seem to be more close to the human POV being right. There is nothing wrong with this, in the end who really cares who started what? The fact is the elves lost and they paid the price all people pay when they lose a war.

 

You're saying that because the Dalish perspective is marginalized, that the Chantry historical account of the Dales is correct by default? I don't agree.

 

I don't think the player is in a position to say whether or not one is correct and the other is incorrect (although I know people have their own preferences for which side could be right). Given how Andrastian human was the default in Dragon Age II (and it was almost the only option in Inquisition until the developers were given more time), I'm simply stating that I hope that the Dalish perspective isn't omitted. The historical account about the fall of the Dales is simply one example; the use of term 'the Beyond' instead of 'the Fade', as well as using 'spirits' instead of 'Spirits or Demons' would be another example.

[Master Warder Z_]

Yeah I think Origins did a decent job, I'm pretty sure I remember "Dalish" versions of both agreeing and disagreeing with npcs on various subjects like Leliana or that Chantry Sister offering blessings in Ostagar. The concern in Inquisition though is that a Dalish PC would almost certainly have the same voice as a non Dalish PC. I'm hoping they don't use the same voice for all races, but even if they don't do that, I can't imagine they'd use separate voices just for Dalish vs non dalish elves. You can sort of get around the retconed accents (like if the Dalish Mage is like Lanaya), but there would still probably have been recordings for a lot of different reactions.

 

If the Inquisitor stumbles across ancient ruins from the days of Arlathan for instance, it should be probably a profoundly moving moment. More so than other types of Inquisitors Who'd likely be more like "Well that sure is something." Almost like the reaction Dalish Wardens can have to returning to the Eluvian that tainted him or her in Witch Hunt compared to all other Wardens.

 

To the highlighted bit.

 

Why? Even for the elves its just a sunken patch of ruins infested with the reminders of an era long since past.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Just because there is two POVs does not mean they are both right. One is wrong and devs seem to be more close to the human POV being right. There is nothing wrong with this, in the end who really cares who started what? The fact is the elves lost and they paid the price all people pay when they lose a war.

 

When it comes to the historical account the Dalish perspective likely wouldn't present anything new and therefore it isn't needed.

 

They started the War after all, The most you could glean would whatever petty mundane reasoning they threw together to justify it.

 

Alright, I'm generally not one to leap to Lob's defense but I think his point in this thread is that a Dalish Inquisitor should be able to have a Dalish perspective on history, even if it is wrong. Which I agree with.The Dalish themselves usually don't think they started the war. Whether a Dalish account presented int he game will be "different" enough for him is something else.

 

And since I believe my Dalish characters tend to have a very different perspective on being Dalish than his, I share his concern about the player deciding what type of elf they want their Inquisitor to be.

 

To the highlighted bit.

 

Why? Even for the elves its just a sunken patch of ruins infested with the reminders of an era long since past.

 

Because remembering the past is central to being Dalish. The sorrow of their lost golden age is a fundamental angst wrapped up in their cultural psyche.

[LobselVith8]

To the highlighted bit.

 

Why? Even for the elves its just a sunken patch of ruins infested with the reminders of an era long since past.

 

It could be profound for the Dalish Inquisitor to stumble upon the ruins of their ancestors (which was thought to be lost because of the darkest magic of the Imperium), which might contain secrets and hidden knowledge that could unearth a wealth of information about Arlathan and the ancient elves.

[Master Warder Z_]

You're saying that because the Dalish perspective is marginalized, that the Chantry historical account of the Dales is correct by default? I don't agree.

 

I don't think the player is in a position to say whether or not one is correct and the other is incorrect (although I know people have their own preferences for which side could be right). Given how Andrastian human was the default in Dragon Age II (and it was almost the only option in Inquisition until the developers were given more time), I'm simply stating that I hope that the Dalish perspective isn't omitted. The historical account about the fall of the Dales is simply one example; the use of term 'the Beyond' instead of 'the Fade', as well as using 'spirits' instead of 'Spirits or Demons' would be another example.

 

Why wouldn't it be omitted? It's going within the Universe after all.

 

The Dalish Perspective is that of a shrinking minority that has little facet in modern Thedas, even less so in places of human dominance.

 

And considering the PC will be encountering the Chantry's versions of events far more commonly then that of the hillbillies living out in the woods, just makes sense for their take on things to be marginalized, ignored and outright just blatant lies. You know like the claim that Humanity started the war that set the elves in their proper place.

[Master Warder Z_]

Alright, I'm generally not one to leap to Lob's defense but I think his point in this thread is that a Dalish Inquisitor should be able to have a Dalish perspective on history, even if it is wrong. Which I agree with.The Dalish themselves usually don't think they started the war. Whether a Dalish account presented int he game will be "different" enough for him is something else.

 

And since I believe my Dalish characters tend to have a very different perspective on being Dalish than his, I share his concern about the player deciding what type of elf they want their Inquisitor to be.

 

Their entitled to their flawed and even sometimes false perspective, i am not denying them that.

 

I am pointing out that even if said perspective comes to light.

 

It doesn't magically change what actually occurred.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I didn't say it did. But in game content wise, a Dalish Inquisitor should be able to talk and react like a Dalish would.

[LobselVith8]

Why wouldn't it be omitted? It's going within the Universe after all.

 

The Dalish Perspective is that of a shrinking minority that has little facet in modern Thedas, even less so in places of human dominance.

 

And considering the PC will be encountering the Chantry's versions of events far more commonly then that of the hillbillies living out in the woods, just makes sense for their take on things to be marginalized, ignored and outright just blatant lies. You know like the claim that Humanity started the war that set the elves in their proper place.

 

Considering that the Inquisitor can be Dalish, I don't think their perspective should be omitted.

 

Logically, the Dalish perspective is going to differ from Andrastian views. About the Beyond, spirits, the Creators, and certain historical events. It would mean very little for there to be racial options if the choice means nothing more than playing as a re-skinned Andrastian Inquisitor.

 

And I'm fairly certain that a Dalish protagonist would grow up being taught about the Dalish version of events (as opposed to the ones espoused by the Chantry), regardless of your personal opinions about the elves, and the Dalish specifically.

[Steelcan]

Just curious, is WoT written from an in universe perspective?

[EmperorSahlertz]

WoT is about facts. The Dalish account fo the reasons for the war is being omitted from WoT because it obviously is inaccurate. Sure, DA:I might omit fallacies aswell, but I don't see why they should prevent a Dalish PC from being misinformed.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Just curious, is WoT written from an in universe perspective?

The timeline and the main text, no. The timeline and the main text is word of god. There are however in-universe "codex entries" which are, of course, in-universe.

[Master Warder Z_]

Considering that the Inquisitor can be Dalish, I don't think their perspective should be omitted.

 

Logically, the Dalish perspective is going to differ from Andrastian views. About the Beyond, spirits, the Creators, and certain historical events. It would mean very little for there to be racial options if the choice means nothing more than playing as a re-skinned Andrastian Inquisitor.

 

And I'm fairly certain that a Dalish protagonist would grow up being taught about the Dalish version of events (as opposed to the ones espoused by the Chantry), regardless of your personal opinions about the elves, and the Dalish specifically.

 

As i said they are entitled to their ignorance i just don't expect the world to magically shower their view across it self considering how bad they are sharing and how arrogant they are.

 

Those hicks can keep to their mud god and reindeer, If anything the Dalish are responsible for their perspective not being known outside of themselves.

 

Course considering for the most parts its all incorrect...well probably for the best just for historical accuracy.

[Master Warder Z_]

WoT is about facts. The Dalish account fo the reasons for the war is being omitted from WoT because it obviously is inaccurate. Sure, DA:I might omit fallacies aswell, but I don't see why they should prevent a Dalish PC from being misinformed.

 

Exactly my point.

 

They can keep their false history, I just don't want the world to reflect like those beliefs are magically true just because they are Dalish.

 

Political correctness ruins the modern age after all.

[Steelcan]

So OP is upset because a perspective of the Dalish was  not confirmed as canon, hinting that the Human Perspective is the true one?

[Shadow Fox]

Or you know the Dalish version could have some truth in it.

 

And just because one is the dominant view doesn't make it right otherwise the Earth would be flat.

[Herr Uhl]

More then enough in our own history do to the point where i can safely say it happens enough that whatever occurred to the backwood skulkers wasn't anything special.

 

Mass enslavement, also not a rare outcome in war.

Genocide on a huge scale not being anything special? Watch out so you don't cut yourself on that edge.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Or you know the Dalish version could have some truth in it.

 

And just because one is the dominant view doesn't make it right otherwise the Earth would be flat.

There is always three sides to a story. Group A's, Group B's, and then the truth. Group A and Group B have some of the truth, but tend to leave parts out.

[Steelcan]

Or you know the Dalish version could have some truth in it.

 

And just because one is the dominant view doesn't make it right otherwise the Earth would be flat.

 

Yet the "Word of God" source indicates it isn't?

[LobselVith8]

WoT is about facts. The Dalish account fo the reasons for the war is being omitted from WoT because it obviously is inaccurate. Sure, DA:I might omit fallacies aswell, but I don't see why they should prevent a Dalish PC from being misinformed.

 

Claiming that the Dalish historical account is inaccurate because you favor the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars doesn't make it so.

 

Since the developers never said, one way or the other, which historical account is correct, the player isn't in a position to say which historical account is the correct one.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

World of Thedas is written from an in universe perspective. But it's also an objective perspective. I mean maybe it's ostensibly supposed to be written by Genetivi, but it might as well not be. None of his (relatively few) biases appear in the main text and I'm pretty sure no author is described at the beginning or end. Plus it covers events that happen after he is potentially killed.

 

There's actually an interesting codex entry in the book by Genetivi that talks about biases, but it's seperate from the main text.

[Steelcan]

Claiming that the Dalish historical account is inaccurate because you favor the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars doesn't make it so.

 

Since the developers never said, one way or the other, which historical account is correct, the player isn't in a position to say which historical account is the correct one.

 

It seems to me that the devs are saying which side is right through this book which is "Word of God" material and not-written from an in-universe perspective

 

Its inaccurate because WoG has told us the truth, and it lines up to the Andrastian perspective

[Shadow Fox]

Yet the "Word of God" source indicates it isn't?

Unless it flat out says it isn't then yes.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Heh pro-elves are crying because elves are confirmed as bad guys but don't cry orlais isn't painted better