It's pretty much the same with Poland, only we joined the Christian club, because basically our first 'grand unifier' Mieszko the 1st realized that it's either that or we're going to be either utterly destroyed or permanently exploited. Needless to say, there's not much left from original pagan Slavic beliefs (though funnily enough Polish Christian faith has its own unique flavor, because instead of some traditions being rooted out they were assimilated or slipped through cracks).
As a side note, I'd like to mention that many Hungarians and Poles consider our nations to be bestest of friends... so much in fact that when Slovakia came to existence we kinda, um, tried to make it stop existing, however slightly >.>''', since it was first time since what seems like forever that we don't share the border with Hungarian buddies.
Yeah, that sounds like what happened in Hungary, too. And I know, we are besties. 
And despite our current dispute, I think we'd get along famously, too.
The problem is that almost all elves were at one point Dalish - that is, they at one point unified and inhabited the region of the Dales that was at one point in time their new homeland. It's only after the Exalted March that the Dalish were formed and the division between city elves and the Dalish began to truly exist, not earlier than that.
But my point isn't that - It's not that they're trying, but their attitude concerning different people (including city-elves) and the fact that they're pretty confident that what they uncovered is truth, to a point that they will not listen to those who DO know the truth. The fact that they're oppressed doesn't give them the right to twist the truth to their liking, especially that it may yet end badly for them.
I mean, imagine that the Evanuris either get to be released or someone manages to convince them that they speak in their name - and feed them stories they want to hear or they think they know. Most, I assume, would naturally follow the Evanuris rather than Fen'harel, or anyone else who knows better, and most probably would not sway if they were told that they're used or the truth is pretty grim, given that their entire culture pretty much spins around the conviction that one day gods will return, human civilization will crumble and then it's smooth sailing back to glory days.
Alright, the Dalish: I wasn't being literal, that the Dalish and city elves in their existing form predates the Dales, that makes no sense obviously. What I meant is that this sort of in-fighting between the elves easily might have predated their enslavement, then their mass exodus and finally the downfall of their new empire. At the core of Dalish values - and I mean the elves of the Dales, not the nomadic clans here - was rediscovering their lost history and rekindling their belief in their own gods, etc. By that point they either forgot what happened before their enslavement (technically their second mass-enslavement), or perhaps they decided that the "freedom" they won via Fen'Harel's actions was not worth the price, i.e. Fen'Harel's actions inadvertently plunged them into civil war and caused them to be oppressed by humans. (This is wild speculation, I'm not claiming this is so and written in stone.) Point is, after the second downfall of the People, it is this lost history that the Dalish fight to retain - that's doubly garbled beliefs, even the original Dalish probably had a lot of their facts backwards. Perhaps the city elves are the ones who decided that it is exactly this sort of mentality, this clinging to faded traditions they barely understand, which lead their People to destruction in the first place, so that's why the split happened (again). In a way, they are representative of two realistic factions that date back to the raising of the Veil; not literally, but in terms of narrative and in philosophy, the beliefs correlate.
I get why Solas has such a low opinion of the Dalish, we agree that they are pig-headed about "truths" and actual truths. And just as I would hold Solas accountable, I would hold the Dalish accountable, too. I agree about what would happen should the Evanuris show up, too. Still, I want Solas of all people to be someone who can understand what's what regarding the Dalish, and as your Lavellan can tell him, the Dalish have changed, grown beyond all that was before - and perhaps that's a good thing. (Specifically, she says that though the vallaslin might be slave markings, they have since been marks of pride, they can symbolize the elves rising above what happened to them.) I think Solas never had the intention of pitting elf against elf by dividing them on the Evanuris question. His actions speak of that, that he took the matter into his own hands rather than throwing his army of rebels against the loyal minions of the Evanuris. So I think that it would be in his interest to try to to find a way to get through to them somehow... and actually Lavellan could be a perfect way of doing that.
And hey! Lavellan's clan moved into a city with the city elves, if you played your cards right. There is always room for change and it will happen even to the most stubborn people. I just hate the thought that Solas might give up on the elves who want to somehow return to their roots, no matter how misguided they may be.
Actually, Solas isn't really as condescending as people try and paint him as sometimes, I've noticed - far less condescending than Dorian is about Tevinter and maybe even less critical then even Cassandra or Leliana are about the Chantry/Seekers/Orlais and we do know that all of them actually deeply care about subjects of their criticism.
Granted, I know that it's a somewhat different thing, given all the oppression and all, but still his criticisms aren't as unreasonable or extreme or short-sighted as I sometimes see it depicted in comments or fanfiction. He criticizes them for lack of knowledge and mangling details, while many of them view themselves as sole keepers of the elven lore (which is a fair criticism), but he still tells others that they remember more than most. He gives them at least some credit for raising approved elven Inquisitor even if Lavellan tells him that they didn't shape them in entirety, and tells romanced Lavellan that he admires their indomitable spirit. Bah, if taken into Elgar'nan's Bastion, he's the one to say that Taven would want the Dalish to have the truth revealed there, therefore encouraging Inquisitor to give the documents to Hawen instead of the Chantry.
Really... I'm not sure what people expect from him at this point... Accept that they're trying? But that's almost the first thing he does if he's confronted by elf Inky and told that they're trying!
He slightly approves, apologizes for being harsh and offers the - at that point not that well-known - Dalish Inquisitor answers to pretty much any question they have, and they're all pretty much devoid of any sort of sarcasm or condescension; in fact in the balcony scene he readily asks Inquisitor if perhaps he's misjudged them.
He doesn't really tell much bad or openly derogatory about the Dalish after that, with the only mild exception being some dialogue in ToM that basically sums to asking to not think of the Dalish as those who have the true picture of the past or something like it - which is a legit request.
Oh, he's condescending enough. Almost every time Lavellan and he speak and the Dalish come up, he somehow manages to insert subtly that he finds it hard to believe that the Dalish are responsible for any part of her. Any at all. She must be completely unique, etc. because there's no way their way of life influenced her. He admits that he might have misjudged them, but that's only after she defends them repeatedly. As for Dorian, that's not condescension all I think - that's the kind of black sarcasm you display when you're really disappointed in something you want to believe in and want to hide that fact.
But all of this is more than a little subjective, if you think Solas isn't condescending, your perspective will be different then mine, but it's no less valid, nor is my assertion the "right" way to think about it - Solas is complex enough of a character for both of these views to fit into his character easily.
I will say that this interpretation shouldn't be taken overboard - Solas is reasonable and he is man enough to admit that he might have been wrong, if you press him on it. He even apologizes for his rudeness about it in various conversations and accepts that if the Inquisitor is Dalish, obviously it would be wrong and offensive for him to just write them off as "just like the rest" - he does give Lavellan (male or female) a chance to prove him wrong in a way. My worry is that this is not enough to mend his relationship with the Dalish. So, I think Solas has balance enough as well as a character, I would probably screech foul if he is portrayed as being as pig-headed as the Dalish are.
As to what I expect from him: yes. I do want him to accept that they're trying. And again you're agreeing with me: the Inquisitor tells him that at least they are trying and Solas concedes this point. That doesn't change his overall view, but it's a start.
Coming at it from the other way around, we're saying the same thing and referencing the same examples, the only thing we're really disagreeing on is the level of condescension he displays. 
Why can't we just get along and let this rest?
That very much depends on the clan. We do know that many Dalish turn away from flat-ears; we know how Briala was treated in TME and we know that Mihris from the same clan was quick to be pretty condescending towards Solas, without him saying much anything or in fact saying anything whatsoever in the presence of elf Inquisitor - calling him flat-ear and openly questioning his ability to magically get rid of the debris blocking the entrance into the ruins after ordering him to do it first. What's more, he seems to be courteous towards her despite that, with the only breach in decorum being him pretty much openly calling her out for lying to non-elf Inquisitor... which she does.
Besides - I wasn't just talking about the elves who seek knowledge.
Not many would accept readily that the "truth" they cling to in order to preserve their identity is either false or not as glorious as myths and legends tell so - but there's a clear danger to putting such truth on a pedestal or clearly being biased about it. I'd claim that there's even more of a danger to those who have scrapes of truth but cling to them and claim that they know how things were best than poor, ignorant city elves who at least have a good sense to be honest about their lack of knowledge.
Also - how do you know that Solas gives no points of reference about the Fade?
We don't have a point of reference when it comes to his interactions with the Dalish (the exception being the Dalish Inky) - he might have had only a year to walk in the Veiled world, but he had thousands of years to observe world and interact with it through dreams and likely had his agents infiltrating the Dalish clans for who knows how long. That he wants to distance himself from the world he either plans to either change or destroy is one thing, but I don't think it can be claimed that he makes snap judgments that are devoid of any substance, or that he has no idea of their suffering. I think the only thing Solas would contend, given thousands of millenia of observing things through the Fade, that the suffering of the Dalish elves may not be more severe or important than suffering of other groups (be it elves or non-elves), hence he gives them no special treatment (in fact, this is pretty much what is stated in WOT2).
As I also said - not all clans are equal. We can toss about one clan and the other to make our points, but when it comes down to it, they are both what you are saying and what I am saying. To isolate one or the other type is starting to get a little ridiculous, I mean, it's like basing a theory on the exception, there is more than enough support for both positions.
As to points of reference - he might have given a few, but due to the secretive nature of his approach, he simply cannot give substantial evidence without giving himself away. He has to limit the knowledge he appears to know - just like with the Inquisition, he was knowledgeable, but he had to put everything in the context of "seeing impressions in the Fade" and given the ephemeral nature of the Fade, I wouldn't count anything given in that context as substantial evidence.
Yes, we have no idea what went on between Solas and the Dalish. But again - if he communicated for centuries through the Fade... well, we know what the Fade became in terms of definition. All magical teaching revolves around "don't trust anything in the Fade" and someone soliciting unwanted advice? Yeah, not seeing that as a great sales pitch for even the Dalish. And no, I don't think he makes snap judgements - I also agree that he doesn't give them special treatment.
You're missing the point - I never said anything about the death of Mythal not being the reason he eventually banished the Evanuris for; I question your assessment that he did it predominantly out of vengeance.
I mean, just like he flat out states that it was the death of Mythal was a step too far, he flat out states that if he hadn't created the Veil the Evanuris would doom the world. So I'm not sure why you're accepting one of his statements at face value, but deny the other? Especially given the already cited evidence of the mural and a rune that rather clearly predates the death of Mythal and reveals one of his main motives to lead the People against Evanuris is to prevent false gods and their greed to doom the world and everyone with it.
And when the only voice of reason among Evanuris got murdered, he assessed that every alternative was worse than the Veil. We're yet to find out why he's made such assessment, but the motives of his actions are pretty clear and they're rather clearly not just a matter of avenging Mythal. It's a far deeper and more complex issue.
I'm not ignoring his other statement - I'm questioning its honesty. I don't think Solas is lying to us, I think Solas isn't being honest with himself. But as I said in another post, maybe I'm completely wrong, I'm not invested in my position.
I accept this explanation, too, it seems plausible to me that Solas decided that the Evanuris had to fall because they grew too dangerous when they killed Mythal. I'm just saying that it could be that Mythal's death was so important to him that he made a judgement call he might not have otherwise. Sure, the Evanuris are dangerous tyrants, but he was trying other methods at first, it seems a little drastic to all of a sudden decide that there is only one way to solve the issue, and it must be done whatever the cost.
It's a little like Anders/Justice in my mind - the reasoning might be sound, the sense of justice and the desire to free mages might be virtuous, but no amount of that can assure that Anders remains balanced. (And before we get into a loop argument about this: I realize that Solas isn't possessed. But ultimately I think of Anders' character as a symbolic representation of the instability of walking the line between justice and vengeance, and not just a literal concept, I think Dragon Age in general brings up excellent points about this throughout its stories, nothing is black-and-white in this world - especially not Solas.)
Again - if the Veil managed to salvage what was otherwise supposed to be destroyed, then we can't just call the creation of the Veil as total screw-up. Just like Solas, it appears to be an action that is neither black, or white, but utterly gray.
He feels horribly guilty about it, but how a person sensitive to a plea of others and passionate about free will and living to the fullest of one's potential NOT feel guilty that apparently the only solution at hand destroys his home, messes with the Fade, forces the others to live in a diminished state in a world that still slowly marches towards what appears to be pretty inevitable doom? Plus, he's has a penchant to taking blame for everything - question is however if whether just because he blames himself for everything are you going to believe most his previous actions can only be categorized as 'screw ups' and that's the only reason he does things is to fix his mistakes, rather than being put in an impossibly difficult and complex situation?
I mean, you already said that he's biased and we shouldn't believe everything he says at face value.... So why believe that he's responsible for everything and his screw-ups are as big and numerous as he claims, when instead we can at least some of it may be exaggerated by a rather bad case of guilt-and-betrayal-ridden PTSD?
I mean it's one thing to take responsibility for one's actions and another to be unfair towards someone who readily takes the blame for everything, because he's convinced he's doomed, broken, capable only to bring pain to anyone he cares about and beyond saving anyway.
I didn't say it was - but that doesn't mean that the price wasn't too high. I'm not going to judge that with the little information we have, but I am willing to entertain the notion that maybe Solas didn't make a good decision. And as I just said - definitely not black-and-white... which is why we're having this argument in the first place, there is room to interpret in multiple ways.
Alright, I'm taking the unpopular position on Solas' character - but I want to point out that the virtuous attributes you ascribe to him are only part of the whole. He does have altruistic elements in him, yes. He does want to liberate people and he does bear the burden of his choices. But that doesn't make his choices right, nor pure what with the amount of collateral damage he's willing to accept as a price. Think of the legend of his arrow, falling only in time to save the children while everyone else is left for the slaughter. He has noble intentions, but his methods are not noble, and sometimes the ends do not justify the means - all I'm saying is give him the benefit of the doubt in both directions. I'm forgiving of him because I adore Solas, but I try to be as critical as possible to really understand who he is, that's all. Hey, I wouldn't be here if I didn't love the guy no matter what he did.
If he's not such a good judge then how come he managed to predict that Inquisition's going to be infiltrated and basically saved the South by tipping Inquisitor that the Qunari are up to no good? Is him seeing Inquisition as the best chance to defeat Corypheus was a mistake? Is he making a mistake by saving Inquisitor as well?
Corypheus was a fluke, but it's hardly a measuring stick of how badly he can judge people, but rather how desperate he is and how dire the situation may be. Many of Solas's flukes can be pretty easily ascribed to him fighting near-impossible odds (I'd like to point out that Mythal apparently fought them too in her own way and got herself murdered), and when those are in the picture, the chances of making critical mistakes or having many stakes against himself increase insurmountably.
That's not to say that Solas isn't biased or can't make grave mistakes. But given what we know about character, how it takes him relatively short time to adjust his opinions about people when with Inquisition and decent Inquisitor, and and how much thought he puts into everything, it's not really in-character IMO for him to just believe that Evanuris would destroy all without a very good reason to think that they indeed would.
One good judgement - or even two - don't make him great at judging people. Besides, you can decide whether or not that was a good judgment or not, your Inquisitor can do a lot that damages his position or his intentions. As for his tip about the Qunari - I don't see how this connects really, I mean, I'm not saying that he's completely blind or makes bad choices no matter what he tries to do. The Qunari invasion wasn't a choice at all to begin with - he uncovered information and passed it along, he did that ostensibly with his extensive spy network in the Inquisition. That's not the same as his plot to unlock his orb or to help the Inquisition in order to fix that mess (which, I should add, fails from his point of view in a way, since though Corypheus is finished, though the sky is healed, his orb is gone - and the wounds from this catastrophe linger on). That totally rhymed.
I get that Solas is desperate - I still think it's a universally stupid idea to underestimate Corypheus because he's a "mere Tevinter mage" who "can't possibly have the power to use the orb"........... yeah, I have trouble believing that he was the only option around. He could even have chosen another Tevinter mage he didn't mind dying in the process, not an ancient darkspawn magister who might know considerably more about magic than anyone alive in the present.
As to the Evanuris: I think he always thought them incredibly dangerous. The choice of magnitude for his actions, however, is a different matter. Who is to say that this was truly the best option? We don't even know what his other options were. Maybe it's not fair to judge the consequences we see as too much - but maybe it is. There's a lot to doubt about Solas and his actions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the decisions were bad, sure.
It's one thing to take responsibility for one's actions, it's another to take blame for everything or blame one person for pretty much everything.
Cassandra blames herself for everything that led to the explosion at the Conclave, because she thinks she didn't explain Varric well enough that they need Hawke as Inquisitor. Varric and Hawke blame themselves severely for discovering red lyrium and releasing Corypheus and unleashing them on the world. In both cases, logically, there is indeed some responsibility - yet should the take blame for absolutely everything that transpired? Especially if, by their own assessment, they should indeed take pretty much the full blame???
I think most would agree that it's not really fair to expect this from them. They had to make decisions in increasingly more convoluted or desperate circumstances, while being unable to predict everything that led to the crisis. And while none of them went and done anything at the caliber of creating the Veil, or made attempts to tear it down, I think it's pretty clear how the ordeal to actually get to the point where Solas decides that the Veil is necessary to save the world and actually going through with it could have severely skewed his own sense of burdening responsibility for the entire mess.
I mean, even if we'd assume that Solas doesn't just feel guilty for creating the Veil, but also had his hand in Project Evanuris and their rise to power, is he really to blame for all that transpired, when he's not just the only player in the scene? Is the ruined civilization, mortality of elves and lost knowledge (or a portion of population) a price too high in the face of utter destruction? Especially that Solas didn't just go against ONE opponent, but at least six + the Blight, apparently. And then there's an allusion of pretty bad betrayal that happened somewhere alongside the whole ordeal, likely separate to he betrayal of Mythal (given that he was already fighting the Evanuris when she was killed).
It might have been that he was pretty much the only one left to face a decision and consequences of it - not really an envious position to be in and something of a punishment in itself. That's not to say that Solas is blameless, but given that we're yet to know a full extent of his actions or what happened in the past I'm yet to readily blame him for all the suffering in the world or the causes for it, or deem all his attempts to fix it as utter screw-ups.
I'm not blaming Solas. But I'm not going to give him a free pass on his actions. Blaming him - or him blaming himself - is not a goal to aspire to at all, though the fact that he has the capacity for remorse is obviously a good thing. Taking responsibility is not about admitting guilt, it's about owning your mistakes and doing what you can to make it right (which he is doing), whether or not the consequences were your actual intentions or not. If you smash a car and end up hurting someone by accident, you don't say "oh, I only meant to smash the car" and then ignore the person. I know that's a crude breakdown of the situation as far as analogies go, but I think that something as colossal as raising the Veil turned everything in the entire world on its head; so inherently, he does bear at least a measure of responsibility for the way things are. Just as your heroes, who make history with their big decisions, are ultimately responsible for things that stem from those decisions. If no one did this, then we could slip through responsibility's net and go through so many rabbit holes that in the end no one is really responsible for anything.
As for Cassandra and Varric and Hawke - they also bear some responsibility. In Cassandra's case, it's not necessarily a bad thing that she failed to explain herself better, that mistake caused your Inquisitor to rise and eventually save the world. Varric and Hawke - they don't bear responsibility for many things, but they do bear a measure of responsibility at least for the consequences of unleashing Corypheus. Yes, they were tricked, yes, they tried to undo the mistake and yes, they thought they succeeded in killing him. Are they to blame? No. Could they have done something different? Personally, I think they did the best that they can. Does that mean they don't bear responsibility? No. They do. They shouldn't be held accountable for Corypheus' every misdeed, but they should do all they can to help out and stop the madness - which is exactly what they do.
I was talking about how Solas must feel, the guilt he must bear for what happened as a consequence of his actions. I'm not blaming Solas for all the misery and suffering following the raising of the Veil - but there are some things that are directly a result of his actions that are so earth-shattering that you can still feel the effects in the present.
Phew. I am really exhausted - so I probably wasn't expressing myself with top-notch quality. It'll have to do though, I spent hours and hours on this.
Retour en haut
I know exactly how you feel. I write tons and tons of poetry! 
