344 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Nope I still need my female City Elf waifu.

For some reason, I initially mistook that for "elven waffles".

[Shadow Fox]

For some reason, I initially mistook that for "elven waffles".

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=sJtTqY_1fT0

[Grieving Natashina]

First off, Lob, I love a lot of your posts.  You have some great insights and a nice perspective on the whole matter.

 

Has it occurred to anyone else that the reason why the Dalish entry was omitted?  I would bet money that this will not be the only edition of the World of Thedas.  BioWare is most likely going to do more WoTs, and possibly with a different "author" (but still cannon.)  Wouldn't it make sense for, say, a Dalish narrator for the Dalish tales?  Possibly one that's writing down the old stories and/or dictating them to someone as they write it down?

 

Since the Dalish have been so isolationist for so long, not even Genitivi has gotten a chance to talk to them.  I doubt even the more open Dalish clans would be thrilled to see a shem with the Chantry holy symbol showing up and asking very painful questions.  The entry wasn't there because Genitivi doesn't know the answer (aka BioWare is still probably fleshing out some of the details.)

 

I imagine there will be a few more volumes of WoT: Dalish, Dwarves and Qunari.

[MisterJB]

Even if the elven rebellion become a plot point, chances are no one will be all that interested about how a 700 years old war began but rather how to end the one going on right now.

I'm sure there will be some cosmetic options for elven players to blame the humans.

Wouldn't really be very elvish if you couldn't blame all your misfortunes on humans, anyway.

[LobselVith8]

First off, Lob, I love a lot of your posts.  You have some great insights and a nice perspective on the whole matter.
 
Has it occurred to anyone else that the reason why the Dalish entry was omitted?  I would bet money that this will not be the only edition of the World of Thedas.  BioWare is most likely going to do more WoTs, and possibly with a different "author" (but still cannon.)  Wouldn't it make sense for, say, a Dalish narrator for the Dalish tales?  Possibly one that's writing down the old stories and/or dictating them to someone as they write it down?
 
Since the Dalish have been so isolationist for so long, not even Genitivi has gotten a chance to talk to them.  I doubt even the more open Dalish clans would be thrilled to see a shem with the Chantry holy symbol showing up and asking very painful questions.  The entry wasn't there because Genitivi doesn't know the answer (aka BioWare is still probably fleshing out some of the details.)
 
I imagine there will be a few more volumes of WoT: Dalish, Dwarves and Qunari.

Thank you very much! You made my day.

I don't know why the developers didn't delve into the contrary historical accounts of the fall of the Dales. Given the human only protagonist for Dragon Age II (and nearly Inquisition), it's not implausible that it could have been overlooked that the Dalish codex and the elven Warden provide another account of the story.

The brevity of the entries about the fall of the Dales never really get into the nuances of the war. Page 28, for example, reads: "Tensions mounted, and when a small elven raiding party attacked the human village of Red Crossing, the Chantry called an Exalted March to crush the elven people and conquer the Dales in a series of brutal battles." That citation doesn't get into the contradictory historical accounts from the humans and the Dalish, simply that Red Crossing was attacked, and the Chantry responded. If Red Crossing was attacked in retaliation to human incursion into the sovereign kingdom of the elves, than it fits into the Dalish historical account; otherwise, it fits the Chantry version.

It's a rather simple point that in Thedas, there are different views on what started the war shared among the Dalish and the humans. Why this fact was omitted continues to elude me.

I'm sincerely hoping that the Dalish Inquisition is afforded his (or her) own cultural and religious perspective, with the player having the freedom to really define their character's outlook on the world, the past, and their nomadic lifestyle. I'd hate to see their unique perspectives diluted into a singular (Andrastian) outlook for the sake of convenience.

[Grieving Natashina]

I think it's as simple as that BioWare hasn't worked out the details yet.  Up til this point, we've been seeing the world through mostly human eyes.  Sure, we did have the Dalish Origin, but aside from the little bits here and there, we didn't get much. The human story was probably the easiest, since we are all human and it's a good place to start.  

 

Also, because Origins dealt with so much surrounding human culture and their relation to others, I bet BW had those details worked out for awhile.  

 

You've even pointed out that there is little about the fall of the Dales in the first WoT book.  I have a feeling that the lore behind the fall of the Dales is still evolving, and the writers will share with us when it is done. Since they are doing a different take on elves (not LotR or D&D,) they are probably still creating more details to add.  These aren't your typical D&D wood elves, although they share a lot of same traits as the archetype.  

 

Take it as a good sign: They want to make sure they get the cannon tales of the Dalish polished and sounding great.

 

As far as Inquisition goes, I know that's been a request from a lot of posters.  They'd like the chance to express their race's religious/culture views and not feel like they are forced in believing in Andraste.   I'm hoping the developers are able to do something with our requests, since I think it's fair.  Anyone playing a non-human should be able to have the choice to reflect their own views.

[wcholcombe]

I think a lot of it has to do with just how bioware does things. I think Gaider and Laidlaw and company have it mostly planned out, but they aren't going to reveal it all in WoT. Plus, they have said all along they want to keep a lot of the game lore open to interpretation by the player. WoT is meant to give some broad strokes for reference points without giving too much away. As for why they decided the Dalish were the escalators for the war. They probably figured they had given the Chantey/orlais enough blame and that the Dalish could live with being something other than the innocent victims they are sometimes perceived as.

All that has almost no bearing on in game characters. Your character would rationalize and defend the culture they grew up in. A dalish would defend and rationalize the dalish just like an orlesian would his culture.

[Palidane]

I don't think they will ever tell us how the Exalted March started, because I think it's purpose is to be a source of friction between humans and elves.

"You knife-ears attacked us, unprovoked, even after we gave you your own nation!"

"Lies! You shemlen sent soldiers first, to try and force your religion on us! Why can't you leave us alone?"

 

Only one of them can be right, and if they ever resolved it, it would instantly make a morally grey, ambiguous issue black-and-white, which I don't think Bioware wants.

[Grieving Natashina]

I don't think they will ever tell us how the Exalted March started, because I think it's purpose is to be a source of friction between humans and elves.

"You knife-ears attacked us, unprovoked, even after we gave you your own nation!"

"Lies! You shemlen sent soldiers first, to try and force your religion on us! Why can't you leave us alone?"

 

Only one of them can be right, and if they ever resolved it, it would instantly make a morally grey, ambiguous issue black-and-white, which I don't think Bioware wants.

You don't read history much, do you?  If you did, you'd realize that hearing another side of an ancient war wouldn't make the issue any more black and white.  If anything, hearing another party can make what seemed clear cut become mudded.  

 

It's possible to fill us in on the other side of the fall of the Dales without making this into a black and white issue.  The Dalish are going to see it one way and the Chantry obviously sees it another.  I can't see anything wrong with giving the players the Dalish viewpoint. It isn't about right/wrong, which too many posters in this thread have gotten hung up with.  It's simply about hearing the other side of the story.  I'll treat the Dalish version the same as the Chantry version: While there is bound to be elements of truth in the stories, both sides can spin this story to their own ends.  Both sides can make the other look like the aggressor.  

 

I'm not sure why there is such an issue with players requesting to learn more about the Dalish and the fall of the Dales from the writers.  Besides, who gives a crap who started the war?  That isn't why I'd like to read a book on Dalish history, although I'd like to hear their side of it.

 

 

 

 

Oh and not all of us identify IC as elves that are in support of this lore inclusion.  

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Quick question: do we know that WoT is an unbiased, Word Of God work? Or is it something like the Codexes, written by NPCs from their points of view?

 

Edit: This might have been covered previously, but come on... eight pages.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Quick question: do we know that WoT is an unbiased, Word Of God work? Or is it something like the Codexes, written by NPCs from their points of view?

 

Edit: This might have been covered previously, but come on... eight pages.

The World of Thedas is Word of God, but written in the form of codexes to make it more interesting to read.

[Heimdall]

You don't read history much, do you?  If you did, you'd realize that hearing another side of an ancient war wouldn't make the issue any more black and white.  If anything, hearing another party can make what seemed clear cut become mudded.  
 
It's possible to fill us in on the other side of the fall of the Dales without making this into a black and white issue.  The Dalish are going to see it one way and the Chantry obviously sees it another.  I can't see anything wrong with giving the players the Dalish viewpoint. It isn't about right/wrong, which too many posters in this thread have gotten hung up with.  It's simply about hearing the other side of the story.  I'll treat the Dalish version the same as the Chantry version: While there is bound to be elements of truth in the stories, both sides can spin this story to their own ends.  Both sides can make the other look like the aggressor.  
 
I'm not sure why there is such an issue with players requesting to learn more about the Dalish and the fall of the Dales from the writers.  Besides, who gives a crap who started the war?  That isn't why I'd like to read a book on Dalish history, although I'd like to hear their side of it.
 
Oh and not all of us identify IC as elves that are in support of this lore inclusion.  

Read what you're responding to. He was saying that it would become black and white if the devs revealed that one account, human or Dalish, was right and the other was wrong.

Maybe you don't, but my primary bone to pick with Lob is that he tends to assume the Dalish account is somehow more valid than the Chantry account despite there being no reason to do so. Victors may write history, but losers are just as capable of bending their accounts to whatever suits them.

[LobselVith8]

Quick question: do we know that WoT is an unbiased, Word Of God work? Or is it something like the Codexes, written by NPCs from their points of view?
 
Edit: This might have been covered previously, but come on... eight pages.

It's supposed to be as factual as possible, although it does contain some errors. The marginalization of the elven point of view, the brevity of the accounts about the elves, and the lack of coverage concerning the dichotomy between the historical accounts of the Dalish and the Andrastian humans has caused me to wonder aloud about how the Dalish Inquisitor will be handled in terms of expressing certain points of view, which became the genesis of this thread.

[Heimdall]

It's supposed to be as factual as possible, although it does contain some errors. The marginalization of the elven point of view, the brevity of the accounts about the elves, and the lack of coverage concerning the dichotomy between the historical accounts of the Dalish and the Andrastian humans has caused me to wonder aloud about how the Dalish Inquisitor will be handled in terms of expressing certain points of view, which became the genesis of this thread.

Have you considered that the elves might just be wrong?

[LobselVith8]

Read what you're responding to. He was saying that it would become black and white if the devs revealed that one account, human or Dalish, was right and the other was wrong.
Maybe you don't, but my primary bone to pick with Lob is that he tends to assume the Dalish account is somehow more valid than the Chantry account despite there being no reason to do so. Victors may write history, but losers are just as capable of bending their accounts to whatever suits them.

When did I say the Dalish account was more valid? I've continually pointed out that the player isn't in a position to know the truth, and have conceded that some hold preferences about what historical account they lean towards.

You seem to be confusing me for the players who, earlier in this thread, stated the Chantry version is the Word of God, despite the lack of any actual confirmation from the World of Thedas and the developers.

[addiction21]

When did I say the Dalish account was more valid?

 

Every time you state "there are two sides to the story" and then go on to ignore that side of the story for the story that conforms to your bias that the Dalish are always the victims of the  Chantry.

[Ozzy]

Thought WoT was referring to the Wheel of Time at first and was confused for a few seconds, lol.

[Palidane]

You don't read history much, do you?  If you did, you'd realize that hearing another side of an ancient war wouldn't make the issue any more black and white.  If anything, hearing another party can make what seemed clear cut become mudded.  

 

It's possible to fill us in on the other side of the fall of the Dales without making this into a black and white issue.  The Dalish are going to see it one way and the Chantry obviously sees it another.  I can't see anything wrong with giving the players the Dalish viewpoint. It isn't about right/wrong, which too many posters in this thread have gotten hung up with.  It's simply about hearing the other side of the story.  I'll treat the Dalish version the same as the Chantry version: While there is bound to be elements of truth in the stories, both sides can spin this story to their own ends.  Both sides can make the other look like the aggressor.  

 

I'm not sure why there is such an issue with players requesting to learn more about the Dalish and the fall of the Dales from the writers.  Besides, who gives a crap who started the war?  That isn't why I'd like to read a book on Dalish history, although I'd like to hear their side of it.

 

 

 

 

Oh and not all of us identify IC as elves that are in support of this lore inclusion.  

 

The problem is that I can't imagine a scenario where the origin of the war is made crystal clear to us at the same time as the rest of the world. Meaning, the two sides will still be blaming each other and debating it even though we know the truth. Which means we will be rolling our eyes every time one of the two sides brings it up, which will discredit their position.

 

As a narrative device, it can only function if we don't know the truth.

[LobselVith8]

Have you considered that the elves might just be wrong?

Wanting the Dalish Inquisitor to express views, ideas, and arguments that represent a person from this culture have no bearing on what's actually true or not. For example, my Dalish Inquisitor following the faith of the Creators doesn't translate to the elven pantheon being the ultimate truth behind the universe; it's merely a reflection of the character.

[Grieving Natashina]

Read what you're responding to. He was saying that it would become black and white if the devs revealed that one account, human or Dalish, was right and the other was wrong.

Maybe you don't, but my primary bone to pick with Lob is that he tends to assume the Dalish account is somehow more valid than the Chantry account despite there being no reason to do so. Victors may write history, but losers are just as capable of bending their accounts to whatever suits them.

This is for Palidane as well as you, Lord.  I had a response typed for you Pali, but the Forum Gods saw fit to eat it.

 

If you have a problem with Lob, then that's your business.  I'm here to discussion the inclusion of elven lore in future EU material.

 

I read exactly what he said, so I'm not sure why you are asking me to read again.  Let me try this again: the devs will never reveal that anyone is right or wrong when it comes to the Dales.  Period.  Why are you so certain that another perspective will somehow make one group right or wrong?  I want to hear the other side of the story.  You fail at history forever if you think hearing the other side of the story is going to make one side right or wrong.  It's naive to think that and I've got no clue why you are insisting on this.

 

Oh and in this thread, Lob has never said that he thinks the elves are 100% right.  I don't know and i don't care what his views are in other places, I'm talking to him here and now.  He wants to see the other side, which is fine.

 

You're so eager to jump to the defense of your friend that you obviously ignored my post.

 

 

 

It's possible to fill us in on the other side of the fall of the Dales without making this into a black and white issue.  The Dalish are going to see it one way and the Chantry obviously sees it another.  I can't see anything wrong with giving the players the Dalish viewpoint. It isn't about right/wrong, which too many posters in this thread have gotten hung up with.  It's simply about hearing the other side of the story.  I'll treat the Dalish version the same as the Chantry version: While there is bound to be elements of truth in the stories, both sides can spin this story to their own ends.  Both sides can make the other look like the aggressor.  

[Grieving Natashina]

I think Elves need to be dealt with more on present issues. Not past ones. What does history matter? They can't even attain present equality. Let alone past superiority.

 

And by this I mean, I'd like to see Elves progress to a better foothold with lands and political say-so. Something that actually transfers from game to game, and is reflected in the world, unlike the "boons" of DAO.

You're asking why a bunch of lore nerds might want to learn more about races in their fantasy game.  Fascinating.

 

Edit:  You also just asked why a group that is recovering their history should pursue it.   It's not like they don't have powerful lost magic or anything like that.  

[TheKomandorShepard]

History doesn't matter much when people are starving in the streets and living worse than my Mabari.

 

Well to be honest they chosen that fate to themselves so...