I'm curious (since you seem familiar with a lot of Solas artwork), is there any art with Merrill and Solas? I always thought the prospect of the two of them meeting and talking would be interesting, given their mutual views on spirits not merely being good or evil and viewing blood magic as a tool.
But yeah, there are a few pieces that have them together.
Also - being intended for a main antagonist =/= sad ending, or =/= determines that character remains a baddie till the end of the story. That's definitely true to DA story.
My canon warden and his buddy Loghain signed in to like this post.
There's always hope.
Oh, that is such bull.
The man who built an empire on the backs of his conquered neighbors, who wanted to extend his borders, who created his own master cult that declared itself the One True Religion and which all other cults and religions were false, wicked and heathen, and said it needed to spread its Chant of Light to all corners of the earth for the Maker to come back and sent missionaries forcing everyone in their path to convert, and tried to convert the elves even though they made it clear they didn't want to buy what humans were selling...
Admittedly, considering how Drakon already conquered his neighboring city-states to create Orlais, I don't see why he would treat the Dales any differently. His issues with the Dales were said to be why he didn't expand his empire: "Having conquered several neighboring city-states and forced others to submit to his overlordship, Kordillus Drakon is crowned emperor of the new Orlesian Empire in Val Royeaux. His ambitions to spread farther north into the Free Marches are confounded by constant pressures from the Dales to the east."
Even Ameridan seems to think that Drakon wants to expand his reach. When he meets a human Inquisitor he says: "How fares Drakon? Has he brought the Chant to the whole world yet?"
When he encounters a Vashoth Inquisitor, American will say: "Drakon's empire has spread far while I slept."
Well, there is this comic.
Spoiler
lol that is amazing. I also love the title of the book Solas is reading. 
Please explain what an elf having a vision of Mythal has to do with Solas' agents? I don't think I overheard that conversation, so what did the elf say? Solas admits he had agents in the Inquisition and probably elsewhere working away while he was trying to recover his orb. Then after he left the Inquisition, those agents remained to keep watch on what was going on and presumably also use their position to influence elves in the alienages in particular. Then not long after the events in Trespasser, elven servants across southern Thedas start disappearing and it is assumed they are joining Fen'Harel. I was just curious as to what their recruitment manifesto might have been.
Please explain what an elf having a vision of Mythal has to do with Solas' agents? I don't think I overheard that conversation, so what did the elf say? Solas admits he had agents in the Inquisition and probably elsewhere working away while he was trying to recover his orb. Then after he left the Inquisition, those agents remained to keep watch on what was going on and presumably also use their position to influence elves in the alienages in particular. Then not long after the events in Trespasser, elven servants across southern Thedas start disappearing and it is assumed they are joining Fen'Harel. I was just curious as to what their recruitment manifesto might have been.
I think her point was that the disappearance of the elves might not be because they're going to join Fen'Harel, they might be disappearing for other reasons. Perhaps Mythal is gathering elves? I'm not too sure about that myself although that elven servant was having dreams of Mythal. There's also the possibility that the Qun is pulling it's elven spies out since they were heavily implicated in the plot at the Exalted Council.
People complained that Cullen was a mage-hating extremist, so they brought him back and made him ridiculously open-minded about mage. Some people thought Leliana came across as racist in DAO and anti-mage in DA2, so they made her more blatantly pro-mage and pro-elf in DAI. Lots of people hated Sera for her immaturity and elf-hating, so they made her more mature and less elf-hating (to the point that she doesn't gloat in her own journal when the elven gods are -shocking - revealed to be fake) for Trespasser. Lots of people hated Vivienne for her coldness and selfishness, so they had her treat the Inquisitor to spa day, act friendly, and ask you questions about your LI in Trespasser so she'd come across as a LITTLE more likable. Lots of people didn't like Mother Giselle's prejudice against Dorian in the main game, so suddenly she's super pro-Dorian, pro-Tevinter in Trespasser!
I can think of PLENTY of examples of the devs going out of their way to portraying Andrastian characters in a positive light after people complained about certain aspects of them, but so far we've seen no examples of that for the Dalish, or "elfy" elves.
Again, you're talking about individuals - it's a different thing from demanding a "fixed" portrayal of a wide, varied group of people that have been established in the game to be wildly different form one another and of whom we got multiple varied portrayals of as well; from hostile and mistrustful to open and friendly.
Also - you'e badly exaggerating with the example you've given. Cullen began the game as a templar who has a deep crush on female mage and sings praises of her achievements. That's not a mark of mage-hating extremist. The Templars specifically pick him to kill the future HoF in case things go bad specifically because he's friendlier to mages than he should. It's a transparent psychological tactic made to force Cullen to disassociate himself from his wards. He also hardly calls for mages to be killed out of the blue - not only the situation in the Circle is dire, he's spent days, if not weeks, being tortured by abominations and demons and is at his lowest point in life when he lashes out, only to struggle with his approach towards mages and what it means for next two games.
Then there's Giselle - since when her apology to Dorian suddenly makes her "super-pro-Dorian" and "pro-Tevinter"? She pretty much apologized after years of knowing him and him proving her that he's not some sort of sinister Vint!
Really, exaggerating like that doesn't really strengthen your point.
The Dalish Inquisitor and Clan Lavellan are characters the player sees ONLY if they choose to play an elf. Showing a "positive example of the Dalish" only when the player chooses to play a Dalish rings pretty hollow since people who play literally every other race still only see negative examples; and don't you think they're the ones who should see examples of elven kindness most of all.
The whole DA franchise - since its very beginning and origin stories - hinges on multiple replays where people get familiar with a chunk of story only after choosing certain backgrounds or choices, or even recruiting or befriending companions or doing certain quests. Take the mage origin - what do you know about harrowing or the struggles of mages in Circle if you don't pick that specific origin? If you don't pick it you get to experience a Circle overran by abominations and demons and maybe Wynne as representation of 'good' mages. You don't get as clear portrayal of light of the Casteless if you don't play Brosca, or the extent of stilted and backstabbing ways of dwarven nobility if you don't play Aeducan.
Also, again with extremes. Since when Hawen's clan, for example, is a 'negative example'? Because they're somewhat suspicious?
Hawen is suspicious and mildly unfriendly - just like every other Dalish seen in the games so far. He also refuses to let his Golden Elf join the Inquisition until the player does favors for the clan, enforcing the view that all Dalish are too overly distrusting of outsiders for their own good.
...And that's somehow vilifying them or being overly negative? And they're hardly "too distrusting" - you make favors to them as a sign of goodwill and they cooperate. We do that to pretty much every faction in the game and their price isn't even that steep. What's more, Hawen may be somewhat distrustful, but Loranil is hardly the only elf there who is portrayed positively, or willing to cooperate with "outsiders", with one of the hunters being all "it's time to forgive".
The thing with a society that has learned the hard way that it's not welcome and keeps together for the sake of preserving their identity is one that learns to sometimes be too overly distrusting for their own good. That's just how it is. I know something about it, given that only 30 years ago, a general sentiments towards some of our neighbors is that they're only good when they're dead or very far away. Took an insane effort to overcome our distrust, and even now our populist politicians play on those sentiments... And sadly win.
And I've seen so many instances of people seeing Red Crossing not as a tragic misunderstanding where both sides were at fault, but as another case of elves being violent and trigger happy since elves technically brought weapons, technically fired the first shot, and choose to scream, "I knew it! The Chantry was right! They said there was an elven attack on Red Crossing that the Dalish denied, and it turned out the Chantry was right and the Dalish lied!" Way to confirm that negative view, BioWare.
...So? I've seen many instances where people deem Solas as chaotic evil villain with no redeeming qualities.
Needles to say if people want to find excuses, they will find them. I thoroughly reject making the story more simplistic because there will be some who'd look at complex piece of history and would be quick to blame one side or the other.
A focus on elven artifacts and moments in time is not a focus on elven characters and their perspectives, views, or trials and tribulations. There is plenty of focus on Andrastian characters, their views, and their issues, even in the Dales; the same is not true of the Andrastian elves, and the single clan we do meet are hardly given much (even in comparison to either Dragon Age II or Inquisition).
Again, statistics. There'd be more focus on Andrastian/human "perspectives, trials and tribulations" plainly because in this time and age they're the dominant group of people. Even in DAI we have a short exchange in Blackwall, when - if Inky is a non-human - Blackwall expresses his surprised and non-human Inky can be like "humans are everywhere, it's expected". It's a simple truth.
Also, yo - Sera is an Andrastian elf.
It's mentioned in TME that the Dales is predominantly elven and Asunder reads that humans are leaving the Dales en mass; it's why the Dales is contrasted with other nations in addressing that the elves outnumber the humans.
... And in Inquisition the Dales have been mostly stomped out by Orlesian army, while Corypheu's Templar scour regions to get more folk for their experiments with lyrium. There's no reason for regions we visit to be densely populated with either elves or humans. We mostly meet either refugees, or insular groups that try and sneak through the Dales without bringing much attention to themselves.
No one is asking for the elves to be completely innocent, and that's a bit of a tired tactic from people who don't actually have a genuine retort to provide when some of us criticize how the developers handle the story. There are a number of problems in how the game is willing to condemn the elves while it whitewashes their human counterparts: We have Michel, who the game treats as if he's a White Knight and completely ignores his murder of an elf as part of his initiation rite. We have the issue that the game, as a whole, ignores that chevaliers murder elves as part of their initiation rite. We have Drakon's conquests and cullings of other faiths ignored in order to place all the blame on the elves for any tensions that arose; it's not complicated to ignore Drakon's actions and pretend as though we should only blame the elves for any wrongdoing. Do you want me to continue?
This has nothing to do with "not having genuine retort" - I've used the "tired tactic" because you're either exaggerating both positive and negative portrayals of either Andrastians and elves, or provide example that doesn't really strengthen your argument.
Like... what have chevaliers to do with anything? The game doesn't go out of its way to whitewash them as a group, nor makes elves vilified people, as much as one pushed to desperation and still mistreated by society in general. We see chevaliers involved in a conflict that is pointless, weary and inept, waiting for inquisition to help them with mess in Exalted Plains and human Freemen of the Dales wanting to grab them for themselves by secretly allying themselves with Cory. There's just nothing there that you could use as an example of whitewashing or absolving Chevaliers (while Michel himself at the end of TME ceases being one and vows to stop Imshael as part of his route towards redemption. His story is not really that much different from one of Tallis).
Plus, we see predominantly Andrastian crowd in Winter Palace sneering at elves and not caring whatsoever that most of them have been murdered. In fact, aside from Morrigan, it's the elves and Briala that actually do something to help Inquisitor petty much at all there.
And no - the elves are NOT blamed for any tension that arose at time of Drakon, merely that their isolationist tendencies later spurred Andrastians to destroy the Dales; an act that was hardly whitewashed. And I like that. I like that their history is not just black-and-white. It by no means mean that the elves "deserve" their fate, no more than mages deserves their treatment on the south due to transgressions of Tevinter. Such rhetoric is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. The only thing it says is that history is complicated and even if the actions of elves weren't hostile, mistakes were made.
Also - you'e badly exaggerating with the example you've given. Cullen began the game as a templar who has a deep crush on female mage and sings praises of her achievements. That's not a mark of mage-hating extremist. The Templars specifically pick him to kill the future HoF in case things go bad specifically because he's friendlier to mages than he should. It's a transparent psychological tactic made to force Cullen to disassociate himself from his wards. He also hardly calls for mages to be killed out of the blue - not only the situation in the Circle is dire, he's spent days, if not weeks, being tortured by abominations and demons and is at his lowest point in life when he lashes out, only to struggle with his approach towards mages and what it means for next two games.
Actually, Ghost didn't exaggerate. Cullen's fate was that he either became a tyrannical Knight-Commander ruling over the Circle with fear or that he became a wandering madman who murdered mages. Then that was rectonned but he became a man in Kirkwall who said that mages aren't "people like you and me" and referred to them as weapons.
Then there's Giselle - since when her apology to Dorian suddenly makes her "super-pro-Dorian" and "pro-Tevinter"? She pretty much apologized after years of knowing him and him proving her that he's not some sort of sinister Vint!
Really, exaggerating like that doesn't really strengthen your point.
Considering that fans said they disliked Giselle because of what she said about Dorian, and then Trespasser included a scene to change how fans felt about Giselle by having her retract the statement that caused some people to dislike her, I'd say Ghost's example is suitable.
Pointing out that the writers are willing to try and change how fans feel about Andrastian characters, while not doing the same for the Dalish, isn't an exaggeration.
Again, statistics. There'd be more focus on Andrastian/human "perspectives, trials and tribulations" plainly because in this time and age they're the dominant group of people. Even in DAI we have a short exchange in Blackwall, when - if Inky is a non-human - Blackwall expresses his surprised and non-human Inky can be like "humans are everywhere, it's expected". It's a simple truth.
Also, yo - Sera is an Andrastian elf.
Your retort doesn't cover how the scenes we do get with the Dalish are handled; you simply point to the ficticious majority of Andrastian humans (which isn't even supposed to be the case in the Dales) and handwave the arguments presented to you. And your example is someone who continually denigrates and generalizes all elves and distances herself from anything elven.
... And in Inquisition the Dales have been mostly stomped out by Orlesian army, while Corypheu's Templar scour regions to get more folk for their experiments with lyrium. There's no reason for regions we visit to be densely populated with either elves or humans. We mostly meet either refugees, or insular groups that try and sneak through the Dales without bringing much attention to themselves.
Pointing out that it was written to marginalize elven perspectives by focusing almost exclusively on human perspectives isn't really much of a retort. We know that the writers chose to provide humans with content in the Dales despite already providing them with content in Orlais and Ferelden - that's part of the criticism that's being presented.
This has nothing to do with "not having genuine retort" - I've used the "tired tactic" because you're either exaggerating both positive and negative portrayals of either Andrastians and elves, or provide example that doesn't really strengthen your argument.
Considering that some of your arguments consist of "the writers wrote it that way", I have to disagree.
Like... what have chevaliers to do with anything? The game doesn't go out of its way to whitewash them as a group, nor makes elves vilified people, as much as one pushed to desperation and still mistreated by society in general. We see chevaliers involved in a conflict that is pointless, weary and inept, waiting for inquisition to help them with mess in Exalted Plains and human Freemen of the Dales wanting to grab them for themselves by secretly allying themselves with Cory. There's just nothing there that you could use as an example of whitewashing or absolving Chevaliers (while Michel himself at the end of TME ceases being one and vows to stop Imshael as part of his route towards redemption. His story is not really that much different from one of Tallis).
Plus, we see predominantly Andrastian crowd in Winter Palace sneering at elves and not caring whatsoever that most of them have been murdered. In fact, aside from Morrigan, it's the elves and Briala that actually do something to help Inquisitor petty much at all there.
You don't address how Michel is whitewashed in Inquisition at all. You don't address that Inquisition never shows us the ugly side of the chevaliers murdering innocent people in the alienage as part of their initiation rite. Your point about the Winter Palace also glosses over the fact that it's already been pointed out that part of the issue is that with so many presentations of Andrastian characters, it's not the same as the more minimal presentations of Dalish elves that they provide.
Briala's story is also ridiculously truncated, and the massacre at Halamshiral is barely even mentioned.
Another thought, if the elf was having a vision of Mythal, how did she know? I wonder what the Mythal in the vision looked like. I bet you anything she didn't look like Flemeth because I think the elf would have mentioned if she didn't look elven. So did she simply look like an elf, or how Mythal really looked back in the old days? I must admit if Solas was wanting to encourage elves to go to a particular place, using Mythal as an encouragement rather than his own persona would probably be a good idea. Even city elves may still remember some of the old stories and the fact that Mythal was a protector of elves, whereas if they recall anything about Fen'Harel it is unlikely to be good. Still you'd think that if a city elf, who followed the Andrastrian faith, had a vision of something that announced itself as Mythal, their immediate reaction would be similar to Sera's, it has to be a demon.
Actually, Ghost didn't exaggerate. Cullen's fate was that he either became a tyrannical Knight-Commander ruling over the Circle with fear or that he became a wandering madman who murdered mages. Then that was rectonned but he became a man in Kirkwall who said that mages aren't "people like you and me" and referred to them as weapons.
And all of these things happened AFTER his traumatizing and crushing experience of prolonged torture by demons in the Circle - a thing basically he himself was left alone to deal with. You're basically talking about a character who, even in "rumors" is established to have had a massive mental breakdown.
So yes, giving Cullen as example is disingenuous, since she's giving an example of a character after a super-traumatic experience and apparently ignoring it in favor of portraying Cullen as a mage-hater for no reason whatsoever, only to be smoothly reconnected into a good guy. That's not what happened - even the fact that Cullen still struggles with accepting mages as people, be it in DA2 and DAI, and his gruesome end in Trespasser if we choose not to help him speaks that it was hardly an easy journey, and it still left him wary of mages.
Considering that fans said they disliked Giselle because of what she said about Dorian, and then Trespasser included a scene to change how fans felt about Giselle by having her retract the statement that caused some people to dislike her, I'd say Ghost's example is suitable.Pointing out that the writers are willing to try and change how fans feel about Andrastian characters, while not doing the same for the Dalish, isn't an exaggeration.
The example given by Ghost Gal sounded thus: "Giselle went from Tevinter-hater to super pro-Dorian, pro-Tevinter character" - and both of you make it sound as if the scene she was in was specifically constructed for her to apologize to Dorian and become this whitewashed, retconned character or whatever.
Again, a.) nothing like this happened. b.) people might have disliked Giselle for not liking Dorian, but generally she is portrayed as uncharacteristically open-minded (for a Chantry sister) and altruistic character who knows when to admit to mistake. After all she apologized to both Dorian and Inquisitor even right after his quest c.) Giselle is actually one of VERY FEW Andrastians and Chantry clerics that could be generally considered really good, compassionate, open-minded and so on.... and even SHE has problems. Or people have problems with her.
Again, you're talking about individuals - it's a different thing from demanding a "fixed" portrayal of a wide, varied group of people that have been established in the game to be wildly different form one another and of whom we got multiple varied portrayals of as well; from hostile and mistrustful to open and friendly.
No, I'm pointing to many examples of individuals that points to a larger pattern. People criticize something about Andrastian characters and institutions? The devs go out of their way to make them more sympathetic or remove their flaws next game.
So far, I've pointed out a lot of examples of the devs addressing fan criticism of Andrastian characters and/or making them more sympathetic in specific ways in subsequent games. Cullen was anti-mage in DAO and DA2? He's pro-mage in DAI. Giselle was distrustful of Dorian for being Tevinter in DAI? She's over it by Trespasser. Sera was so anti-elf that she LAUGHS at a grief-stricken Lavellan regarding vallaslin in DAI? Suddenly she's much more mature and doesn't gloat about negative elven revelations in Trespasser.
But so far you haven't given me ONE example of the devs going out of their way to make the Dalish or "elfy elves" more sympathetic, or address or show a different side to specific criticisms about the Dalish or elfy elves.
If anything, they go the opposite route; they go out of their way to make them less sympathetic. The new "only three mages per clan and the rest get left to die" rule, where in previous games Dalish mage children were cherished? The revelation that the Chantry was indeed right about the elves attacking Red Crossing, vindicating their Exalted March against the Dales? The reveal that ancient elven "gods" were both evil and false at the Temple of Mythal and Trespasser, and the elven religion being indeed barbaric like the Chantry claims in the Temple of Dirthamen? The game going out of its way to hide Gaspard's, Celene's, and Michel's more dastardly qualities from the book, while at the same time hiding Briala's sympathetic qualities in order to shoe-horn in some "all three have equal shades of grey" nonsense for the Winter Palace quest?
I'm not seeing ANY examples of the devs trying to make the elves more sympathetic after revealing tons of not-so-nice information about them, while I'm seeing PLENTY of examples of the devs trying to soften or excuse Andrastian characters and institutions acting not-so-nice.
That's not even getting into the player having no choice but to hear advisers and companions soften or excuse the Chantry's, Seeker's, and Templars' bad qualities when you uncover bad things about them. Meanwhile, the only two or three characters we have to represent the elven view are Solas, Sera, and Minaeve, all of whom do nothing but badmouth elven culture, especially Dalish culture, and (in the latter two's case) sing the praises of Andrastism and the Circles. What's more, when we learn not-so-nice things about Dalish and/or elven culture, like Abelas badmouthing the Dalish to Lavellan, there is NEVER a pro-Dalish character to balance out the anti-Dalish perspective we just learned the way there is always a pro-Andrastian character on hand to balance out the anti-Andrastian or anti-Chantry perspecrtive we just learned. If anything, Sera or Solas are often right there to confirm, "Yeah, that's just another example of why the Dalish suck."
And all of these things happened AFTER his traumatizing and crushing experience of prolonged torture by demons in the Circle - a thing basically he himself was left alone to deal with. You're basically talking about a character who, even in "rumors" is established to have had a massive mental breakdown.
So yes, giving Cullen as example is disingenuous, since she's giving an example of a character after a super-traumatic experience and apparently ignoring it in favor of portraying Cullen as a mage-hater for no reason whatsoever, only to be smoothly reconnected into a good guy.
That's not what happened - even the fact that Cullen still struggles with accepting mages as people, be it in DA2 and DAI, and his gruesome end in Trespasser if we choose not to help him speaks that it was hardly an easy journey, and it still left him wary of mages.
The example given by Ghost Gal sounded thus: "Giselle went from Tevinter-hater to super pro-Dorian, pro-Tevinter character" - and both of you make it sound as if the scene she was in was specifically constructed for her to apologize to Dorian and become this whitewashed, retconned character or whatever.
Again, a.) nothing like this happened. b.) people might have disliked Giselle for not liking Dorian, but generally she is portrayed as uncharacteristically open-minded (for a Chantry sister) and altruistic character who knows when to admit to mistake. After all she apologized to both Dorian and Inquisitor even right after his quest c.) Giselle is actually one of VERY FEW Andrastians and Chantry clerics that could be generally considered really good, compassionate, open-minded and so on.... and even SHE has problems. Or people have problems with her.
The conflicting stories are sort of the point, aren't they? In real life, it's easy to see one facet of a person and make character judgments about them (good or bad). This is why it's so, so, so important to me that each game has a different protagonist. There's a very deliberate skewing of perspective depending on who's witnessing the events. For example, the Orlesian-ish Inquisition sees a completely different face of Teagan, compared to a Fereldan Warden. Book readers see the loyal side of Loghain, and the ugly sides of Celene and Michel, but their mask is maintained for everyone outside their inner circle.
This is supposed to be jarring. Life would be easier if good people were always good, or if people from the same culture always had the same beliefs and behavior. But it isn't that simple. In real life, we don't often get to confront that complexity, because we have one perspective instead of a whole franchise of different perspectives.
Another thought, if the elf was having a vision of Mythal, how did she know? I wonder what the Mythal in the vision looked like. I bet you anything she didn't look like Flemeth because I think the elf would have mentioned if she didn't look elven. So did she simply look like an elf, or how Mythal really looked back in the old days? I must admit if Solas was wanting to encourage elves to go to a particular place, using Mythal as an encouragement rather than his own persona would probably be a good idea. Even city elves may still remember some of the old stories and the fact that Mythal was a protector of elves, whereas if they recall anything about Fen'Harel it is unlikely to be good. Still you'd think that if a city elf, who followed the Andrastrian faith, had a vision of something that announced itself as Mythal, their immediate reaction would be similar to Sera's, it has to be a demon.
We don't know if this is actually Mythal - we only know that this is what she presented herself as Mythal to the elf. We also don't know if she was an elf, human (or dwarf) - only that it was a she.
You know what I find annoying in DAI? Trying to get cloth. Metals are everywhere and infinite, critters that drop leather are everywhere and infinite but cloth? Generally drops from humanoid mobs that have a tendency to stop spawning entirely after you complete certain quests. Seriously, whose idea was that? Someone needs to write them a strongly worded letter. I could go the Black Emporium and buy cloth but I'm trying to save money for other things and whilst technically yes money is infinite, in practice it takes too long (at this early stage in the game it takes over 40 minutes) to do that coin gathering war table mission and the return is rather small. I cannot currently do any war table missions to gather cloth because I'm still in Haven and those missions don't open up until you reach Skyhold. Bah!
This rant was brought to you by boredom ... I have no other single player games atm and only two achievements for DAI left so I figured why not. Except I decided to play a mage and I'm trying to outfit both Solas and myself. Bah, I say! Bah!
@Ghost: actually, I recall that in either DAO or DA2 it was established that elven mages, after the First was decided, were to be sent to other clans. A traumatic situation was already present.
As Merrill's codex explains: "The stories tell us that all elvhen once had the gift; but like so many things, it was lost. It's a Keeper's job to remember, to restore what we can.
"As each generation passes, magic becomes more rare among the Dalish. As the gift dies out, talented children are moved between clans so that every Keeper has a successor, and no clan is in danger of being left without guidance."
Merrill was moved over to the Sabrae Clan at a young age, but she didn't resent it; you also heard her talk about how wonderful magic was and that it was a gift - in companion banter, rather than with Hawke (which is also where her Dalish views were relegated to).
Edit: on Drakon, based on what Ameridas said, he didn't want to conquer the Dales. Maybe he was lying, but in his life he Made no attempt to conquer them, instead he tried to establish better relationship with them.
Not that I care that much about him. I'm not exactly a fan of Orlais.
His addressed difficulties with the Dales preventing the expansion of his empire would suggest that it may be a bit more complicated than Ameridan said.
No, I'm pointing to many examples of individuals that points to a larger pattern. People criticize something about Andrastian characters and institutions? The devs go out of their way to make them more sympathetic or remove their flaws next game.
So far, I've pointed out a lot of examples of the devs addressing fan criticism of Andrastian characters and/or making them more sympathetic in specific ways in subsequent games. Cullen was anti-mage in DAO and DA2? He's pro-mage in DAI. Giselle was distrustful of Dorian for being Tevinter in DAI? She's over it by Trespasser. Sera was so anti-elf that she LAUGHS at a grief-stricken Lavellan regarding vallaslin in DAI? Suddenly she's much more mature and doesn't gloat about negative elven revelations in Trespasser.
But so far you haven't given me ONE example of the devs going out of their way to make the Dalish or "elfy elves" more sympathetic, or address or show a different side to specific criticisms about the Dalish or elfy elves.
It's not "people criticize something about ANDRASTIAN characters" - they criticize something about characters that happen to be Andrastian (and also the ones that are obviously important to the plot). Big difference here and one that I kept trying to point out a few times already.
And yes - even with all the revelations about ancient elves and misconceptions the Dalish have I don't really see how Hawen's little clan or Inquisitor's clan is NOT a positive portrayal. They have their reservations, they're not cartoonishly good or bad - they're just people who, after making sure that your intentions are different from human armies surrounding them, decide to help you out; and even if you provide evidence that the Red Crossing incident was more complicated than either sides thought, THEY'RE the ones who accept the truth and reach out to people, even if they're ready to use the peace offering against the Dalish.
And that's sort of the thing - people and groups who show openness, willingness to change or accept are generally rewarded for it, be it narratively or in terms of portrayal. Everyone, including the Dalish - excluding those who are too mistrustful or isolationist.
Like... has it ever occurred to you that those Dalish or 'elfy elves' are NOT in the right? Like, why Bioware, who is generally about openness and open-mindedness should support people who are all about isolationism and sometimes even elven supremacy?
If anything, they go the opposite route; they go out of their way to make them less sympathetic. The new "only three mages per clan and the rest get left to die" rule, where in previous games Dalish mage children were cherished?
I wouldn't say it's "new", given that Merril was third in her clam to be born with magical gifts and was traded to another clan to be First there and can be considered a variant of this rule. That's basically a politics of Clan Lavellan as well (I'd like to point out that both Lavellan and Alerion clans are clans outside of Ferelden or Orlais), which we can hear about when we talk with Minaeve. It's obviously not Minaeve's old clan politics - but that's sort of the thing. Ever since DAO and through various stories the Dalish has been established as differing wildly form one another. Even Zathrian's clan was a unique one, given their immortal Keeper.
The revelation that the Chantry was indeed right about the elves attacking Red Crossing, vindicating their Exalted March against the Dales?
Seriously? The whole thing has been painted as misunderstanding culminating in a moment when tensions ran high. It's obvious when you read the document. If anything, the willingness of the Chantry to push all the blame on the elves has been portrayed to reflect negatively on the Chantry!
The reveal that ancient elven "gods" were both evil and false at the Temple of Mythal and Trespasser, and the elven religion being indeed barbaric like the Chantry claims in the Temple of Dirthamen?
... What does that has anything to do with "negative portrayal"? The elvhen gods either way are more real than the Maker, while one of the founding myths of Andrastian faith, where Maker creates the Veil in order to separate the Fade and spirits from Maker's beloved children has been pretty much entirely undermined.
So it's hardly as one-sided as you're trying to present it. The idea behind deconstructing pretty much the myths and legends of pretty much ALL people of Thedas - humans, elves or dwarves - are wrong about the nature of their world, or either misinterpret or misunderstand many things about it. In fact, ironically, the Dalish - as Solas said - may remember 'fragments of fragments, but it's still more than most'.
The game going out of its way to hide Gaspard's, Celene's, and Michel's more dastardly qualities from the book, while at the same time hiding Briala's sympathetic qualities in order to shoe-horn in some "all three have equal shades of grey" nonsense for the Winter Palace quest?
You call it 'nonsense' I call it 'an interesting way to make a decision that will never be perfect'. All candidates have skeletons in closets or problems and I enjoy it till now that people are discussing which option would actually be best, or worst, for Orlais or Thedas, given that we're not outright given a clear BW's favorite.
I'm not seeing ANY examples of the devs trying to make the elves more sympathetic after revealing tons of not-so-nice information about them, while I'm seeing PLENTY of examples of the devs trying to soften or excuse Andrastian characters and institutions acting not-so-nice.
... Or, you're either ignoring examples I've provided, or for you they're not "good enough" to be considered ones, while at the same time outright ignoring all the bad things revealed about the Chantry. I mean, you may be salty about revealing the Elves chose not to help Drakon during Blight, but I don't see you mentioning that the fault of the Chantry trying to scratch out *yet another* elf AND mage (and a very positive portrayal of a Dalish elf as well) out of history books has been a much bigger point BW as making through that story. It's the same with Avvar approach to magic, which pretty much goes against Chantry's rhetoric. There's even Colette, a brave assistant of Kenric, who makes it her point to show just how difficult it is for elves to be taken seriously, even on academic field, which is yet another hit against humans/Orlais/Andrastians.
That's not even getting into the player having no choice but to hear advisers and companions soften or excuse the Chantry's, Seeker's, and Templars' bad qualities when you uncover bad things about them.
... That's another exaggeration. Even if you're talking with people who are obviously biased (like Cass or Cullen) at best they provide their perspective, or even admit to having bias. Quite a lot of them offer their own criticisms, or even agree with some of, say, Inquisitor's or Solas's or Dorian's negative remarks. Even Cullen's entire struggle with lyrium addiction has been portrayed by the story as yet another hit against the Chantry. Cass' personal quest? Also pretty much all against Chantry/Seekers.
As for occasional points FOR Chantry/Andrastians... I fail to see how this is bad, given that they DON'T generally have the best reputation among the players.
Meanwhile, the only two or three characters we have to represent the elven view are Solas, Sera, and Minaeve, all of whom do nothing but badmouth elven culture, especially Dalish culture, and (in the latter two's case) sing the praises of Andrastism and the Circles.
Sera sings praises of Andrastianism? ... What? Inquisitor can even tell her to keep questioning all that religious nonsense. Sera obviously declares herself as Andrastian, but never in the story I've heard her praising Andrastianism or the Chantry, in fact she explicitly states that one of main reasons of her initially joining Inquisition is to see if anything about that religion is true ... only to readily dismiss some things to be "true true" after Heaven, because not even zealots want some things to be actual truth. She mocks many things, including religion or religious figures and in the end offers help of Red Jenny *only* if the Divine is either Leliana or Cassandra, which are people she actually likes.
And if anything she's an excellent portrayal of internalized racism (and instilled fear of magic) stemming from how she was treated by people she surrounded herself with... which is mostly humans and Andrastianism 
And both in her and Solas's case the point they're trying to make is that they don't want to be pigeonholed or expected to act certain way, be it by people from or out their presumed cultural circle. Which, if you ask me, is generally a good thing.
And Minaeve's story is not really that different from Wynne's story - and it's yet again a tragic tale of how fear of magic (humans Minaeve stumbled upon didn't help her; instead they've called for Templars to deal with her); which is a thing most definitely conditioned by Andrastian beliefs and Chantry only makes some of mages accept their gilded cage as the only relatively safe place for them in (Southern) Thedas. The point of her story is not as much that she's a rejected Dalish, but that the prejudice against magic is prevalent in the South and that Circle's grip on many mages is not much physical, as it's psychological.
What's more, when we learn not-so-nice things about Dalish and/or elven culture, like Abelas badmouthing the Dalish to Lavellan, there is NEVER a pro-Dalish character to balance out the anti-Dalish perspective we just learned the way there is always a pro-Andrastian character on hand to balance out the anti-Andrastian or anti-Chantry perspecrtive we just learned. If anything, Sera or Solas are often right there to confirm, "Yeah, that's just another example of why the Dalish suck."
Saying that Abelas (or in fact Solas) is "badmouthing" the Dalish is very much a stretch. Like... what do you expect him to do, when they're NOT "his people" for one reason or another? And I'm not even talking about the whole magical-spirity theories we have about nature of elves/ancient elves we have here - just the fact that it's been *thousands* of years since Elvenhan fell, while both Abelas and Sentinels linger in a dead temple, pretty much frozen in time, loyal but alien, frustrated and fatalistic.
Like... at this point you sort of sound as if you wanted the story to confirm that almost everything the Dalish believed in is true. Which it IS... in a sense. So I fail to see what's the issue - unless it's negative because the elven culture doesn't happen to be a lost paradise or something? Or because the truth doesn't vindicate the Dalish and their generally isolationist and "true elven" ways?
I fail to see how Dalish being wrong about things from their past is supposed to be such a large move against them by BW, when the story makes it clear that pretty much everyone is wrong in one way or another.
It's not "people criticize something about ANDRASTIAN characters" - they criticize something about characters that happen to be Andrastian (and also the ones that are obviously important to the plot). Big difference here and one that I kept trying to point out a few times already.
While Ghost and I have pointed out that they have provided a variety of Andrastian characters at the forefront while they typically do little but show the worst of the Dalish at the forefront, as with Sarel (who just lost his wife, but this is information that can only be revealed to Mahariel) and Hawke's first scene with Clan Sabrae (which is also mandatory, and can involve Fenris and Varric making derogatory comments to them while the problems they face with Andrastians are never mentioned until Act III in optional dialogue that is easily missed).
And yes - even with all the revelations about ancient elves and misconceptions the Dalish have I don't really see how Hawen's little clan or Inquisitor's clan is NOT a positive portrayal. They have their reservations, they're not cartoonishly good or bad - they're just people who, after making sure that your intentions are different from human armies surrounding them, decide to help you out; and even if you provide evidence that the Red Crossing incident was more complicated than either sides thought, THEY'RE the ones who accept the truth and reach out to people, even if they're ready to use the peace offering against the Dalish.
Again, Hawen's scenes that are optional and easily missed (particularly as it was already mentioned that quite a few players had trouble even getting high approval with the clan and asked for help online because of it), while the negative and derogatory comments that are made by Minaeve, Vivienne, Iron Bull, Solas, Harding, and others are at the forefront.
And that's sort of the thing - people and groups who show openness, willingness to change or accept are generally rewarded for it, be it narratively or in terms of portrayal. Everyone, including the Dalish - excluding those who are too mistrustful or isolationist.
Ah, you mean people who capitulate to the Andrastian faith are rewarded, while those of the Andrastian faith never has to make any concessions. As we see with Shartan and Ameridan.
Ah, you mean people who capitulate to the Andrastian faith are rewarded, while those of the Andrastian faith never has to make any concessions. As we see with Shartan and Ameridan.
Yes, the city elves live in palaces surrounded by wealth and comfort. They have been totally rewarded.
We don't know enough about Shartan ... was he a believer in the Maker? He aided Andraste in her rebellion so he could free his people but I don't know that he actually converted. At any rate, he didn't insist that all elves convert as the elves in the Dales went back to the elven faith.
Like... has it ever occurred to you that those Dalish or 'elfy elves' are NOT in the right? Like, why Bioware, who is generally about openness and open-mindedness should support people who are all about isolationism and sometimes even elven supremacy?
You know, if someone incessantly said "Latino-y", I'd find that incredibly bigoted and annoying. Just to put that out there in the universe.
And if Bioware's message is: the Dalish are wrong for not submitting to the Chantry and human rule, then I'm not remotely inclined to subscribe to their message. We've already seen what has happened to the Andrastian elves: thousands of men, women, and children burned alive, Shianni and others taken to be gang-raped in broad daylight, and countless killed in the Denerim Alienage - including an orphanage of children. But you seem to want to place all the blame on the elves. You'll have to excuse me for refusing to acquiesce to your statement to blame all the elves.
I wouldn't say it's "new", given that Merril was third in her clam to be born with magical gifts and was traded to another clan to be First there and can be considered a variant of this rule. That's basically a politics of Clan Lavellan as well (I'd like to point out that both Lavellan and Alerion clans are clans outside of Ferelden or Orlais), which we can hear about when we talk with Minaeve. It's obviously not Minaeve's old clan politics - but that's sort of the thing. Ever since DAO and through various stories the Dalish has been established as differing wildly form one another. Even Zathrian's clan was a unique one, given their immortal Keeper.
Let's see: Merrill's story involves addressing that she moved from her original clan to Clan Sabrae because magic is "dying out" among the Dalish, and Merrill explicitly notes that any mage is apprenticed to the Keeper to learn magic and shows confusion at humans locking mages away where they can't do any good, and that's not even covering Zathrian's clan having more than three mages. And I didn't even mention Ariane's clan welcoming an additional mage from the Circle into their midst. But you were saying something about this not being a recton, even though it explicitly contradicts two games and one DLC of information?
Seriously? The whole thing has been painted as misunderstanding culminating in a moment when tensions ran high. It's obvious when you read the document. If anything, the willingness of the Chantry to push all the blame on the elves has been portrayed to reflect negatively on the Chantry!
Let's see, we have a plethora of characters engaging us in mandatory scenes where we hear about how the Chantry is worth saving and how good the Andrastian faith is, while we have multiple characters (of varying importance) talk negatively about the Dalish, their culture, and their religion, and your retort to this is an optional quest that was missed by people who weren't able to acquire sufficient approval with the clan?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that being much of an argument in your favor.
... What does that has anything to do with "negative portrayal"? The elvhen gods either way are more real than the Maker, while one of the founding myths of Andrastian faith, where Maker creates the Veil in order to separate the Fade and spirits from Maker's beloved children has been pretty much entirely undermined.
I didn't realize turning the Creators into one-dimensional caricatures was something that we should applaud.
So it's hardly as one-sided as you're trying to present it. The idea behind deconstructing pretty much the myths and legends of pretty much ALL people of Thedas - humans, elves or dwarves - are wrong about the nature of their world, or either misinterpret or misunderstand many things about it. In fact, ironically, the Dalish - as Solas said - may remember 'fragments of fragments, but it's still more than most'.
I think it's precisely how Ghost has presented it. Giving us optional and easily missed content regarding positive Dalish presentation while putting the negative content at the forefront and making most of it mandatory actually goes against the case you're making. Having the Creators presented as villainous caricatures also isn't what I would call positive.
And that's sort of the thing - people and groups who show openness, willingness to change or accept are generally rewarded for it, be it narratively or in terms of portrayal. Everyone, including the Dalish - excluding those who are too mistrustful or isolationist.
Because outlawing the religion of the Dalish and attacking them any time they stay too long in one area is clearly reason enough to blame the Dalish entirely for how things are. Let's not forget the Andrastian humans who were threatening the Dalish with violent in an attempt to force them to convert.
... Or, you're either ignoring examples I've provided, or for you they're not "good enough" to be considered ones, while at the same time outright ignoring all the bad things revealed about the Chantry. I mean, you may be salty about revealing the Elves chose not to help Drakon during Blight, but I don't see you mentioning that the fault of the Chantry trying to scratch out *yet another* elf AND mage (and a very positive portrayal of a Dalish elf as well) out of history books has been a much bigger point BW as making through that story. It's the same with Avvar approach to magic, which pretty much goes against Chantry's rhetoric. There's even Colette, a brave assistant of Kenric, who makes it her point to show just how difficult it is for elves to be taken seriously, even on academic field, which is yet another hit against humans/Orlais/Andrastians.
Because your example was the main character and the conclusion of a quest that's easy to miss for a multitude of reasons, while Ghost pointed out that the negative information that's directed about the Dalish is usually mandatory and at the forefront. That's the kind of imbalance that's being addressed.
And considering how JoH didn't bother trying to depict Drakon's expansionism as a bad thing (with Ameridan even sounding as if he thought Drakon conquering other nations was a good thing, via his dialogue to Vashoth Inquisitor in assuming that Orlais has reached now lands), that's not really the DLC you want to bring up in a discussion like this.
... That's another exaggeration. Even if you're talking with people who are obviously biased (like Cass or Cullen) at best they provide their perspective, or even admit to having bias. Quite a lot of them offer their own criticisms, or even agree with some of, say, Inquisitor's or Solas's or Dorian's negative remarks. Even Cullen's entire struggle with lyrium addiction has been portrayed by the story as yet another hit against the Chantry. Cass' personal quest? Also pretty much all against Chantry/Seekers.
Nothing Ghost has said has been an exaggeration. In fact, your contention that Cullen's lyrium withdrawal is an attack on the Chantry was rectonned post-Origins (when Alistair provided a pro-templar, anti-Chantry argument that lyrium may not even be necessary for the templars and may simply be a tool used for control), so it can't be used against the Chantry because the lore was changed to make it mandatory to use lyrium in order to use templar abilities.
Furthermore, Cassandra is the one who talks about how necessary the Chantry is and how it needs to be saved, so your contention that Casandra's quest is an attack on the Chantry (which it isn't - the quest only attacks the Seekers of Truth - and even that doesn't mean anything because Cassandra can aim to reform it) is disingenuous.
Sera sings praises of Andrastianism? ... What? Inquisitor can even tell her to keep questioning all that religious nonsense. Sera obviously declares herself as Andrastian, but never in the story I've heard her praising Andrastianism or the Chantry, in fact she explicitly states that one of main reasons of her initially joining Inquisition is to see if anything about that religion is true ... only to readily dismiss some things to be "true true" after Heaven, because not even zealots want some things to be actual truth. She mocks many things, including religion or religious figures and in the end offers help of Red Jenny *only* if the Divine is either Leliana or Cassandra, which are people she actually likes.
You do realize Sera breaks up with Lavellan unless she recants her Dalish beliefs, right? She also repeatedly talks about how the Maker can't co-exist along with elven beliefs, so she's not the character you want to use to claim that there is no pro-Andrastian dialogue going on in Inquisition.
Retour en haut
