@topic
There was one thing I was thinking, is anyone also under the impression that the writers added Red Lyrium as a templar equivalent of Blood Magic?
It's said that Red Lyrium augments the templar's power beyond their normal level. Though It also causes negative effects on the person's psyche, as was demonstrated with Meredith and Barthrand. Guess that might explain why the Red Templars appear to be running amok and threatening both mages and mundanes.
Please read carefully what I wrote.
I never said that trying to fight against oppression was naive, I said that thinking that a successful rebellion will suddenly solve the problems that mages face, and have faced for hundreds if not thousands of years, is naive. That's an entirely different thing.
The fact that an order of warriors exists who keep mages under lock and key isn't a cause of the problems that mages face. The real problem is the fear and hatred that common people feel towards mages, which led to the creation of the templars in the first place - as a guarantee that these same mages wouldn't threaten the rest of society and that the society itself wouldn't be able to harm the mages. That the templars failed in the later part of their duty is clear as day, but removing them from the picture won't suddenly make everything right.
And since it's obvious that my posts on the matter are misinterpreted, whether intetionally or not, I'll make it as clear as I possibly can:
I didn't come here with the intention to insult anyone, regardless of their views on the templar/mage conflict. I'm simply arguing and presenting my view on the conflict and how I see it playing out for both sides. If anyone saw this as a personal attack, then I apologize. That certainly wasn't my intention.
Oh, and thank you CapivaRasgor for making the effort of understanding what I was trying to say. I'm glad somebody here is.
I didn't think anyone was making any personal attacks here; that said, I find it almost impossible to believe that someone thinks a bunch of people hating them is a worse problem than by being imprisoned and enslaved. It's true that the latter is the symptom of the former, but the hate isn't actually a problem, so long as mages have their freedom, and that is the real goal here. I mean it seems pretty obvious, but the question here is simply 'would you rather have a bunch of people hate you, or would you rather be a slave for life?!'
Both in the real world and in Dragon Age, everyone is hated by somebody or the other, often just because they exist; that's not a real problem, being imprisoned is a real problem, which is solved by being powerful or resourceful enough to avoid that consequence. As a mage, I don't care what you think of me, so long as you keep your paws off, and if you don't, there are plenty of solutions.
I didn't think anyone was making any personal attacks here; that said, I find it almost impossible to believe that someone thinks a bunch of people hating them is a worse problem than by being imprisoned and enslaved. It's true that the latter is the symptom of the former, but the hate isn't actually a problem, so long as mages have their freedom, and that is the real goal here. I mean it seems pretty obvious, but the question here is simply 'would you rather have a bunch of people hate you, or would you rather be a slave for life?!'
Both in the real world and in Dragon Age, everyone is hated by somebody or the other, often just because they exist; that's not a real problem, being imprisoned is a real problem, which is solved by being powerful or resourceful enough to avoid that consequence. As a mage, I don't care what you think of me, so long as you keep your paws off, and if you don't, there are plenty of solutions.
The problem here is that you only see the negative side of having mages in the Circle. Yes, due to the actions of the templars the Circle can be seen as a prison, but it's also a safe haven and a place of learning, where a mage can master his powers and find companionship among those who understand what he's going through. The problem with the Circle is that the a number of templars abused the power and authority over the mages, and the fact that these actions were largely ignored by those in power made them seem as if they were fully sanctioned and approved. That doesn't mean the idea of a Circle by itself is bad. It was simply implemented in a wrong way.
And hatred in real world is different from hatred in a setting like Dragon Age. In real world there are laws against hatred in democratic societies, and even if they aren't you can usually choose to migrate to a different country that may be more tolerant of you. Such options don't exist in Dragon Age, because it's not an enlightened setting where personal freedom and human rights are held as sacred. Here, might makes right. The people at the top of the society have all the freedom to do as they please and those below are only as free as their rulers will allow. In such a society mages are seen as a danger by everyone.
A free mage in such a society would be no better off than a hunted animal. You can't live a normal life among others, and even if you escape into the wilderness and try to make a living there (like Solas), you will eventually be attacked again. Simply because you exist and are seen as a threat.
The only real solution is to make the society at large understand that mages are an asset and not a threat, and that cannot be achieved by armed rebellions.
The problem here is that you only see the negative side of having mages in the Circle. Yes, due to the actions of the templars the Circle can be seen as a prison, but it's also a safe haven and a place of learning, where a mage can master his powers and find companionship among those who understand what he's going through. The problem with the Circle is that the a number of templars abused the power and authority over the mages, and the fact that these actions were largely ignored by those in power made them seem as if they were fully sanctioned and approved. That doesn't mean the idea of a Circle by itself is bad. It was simply implemented in a wrong way.
And hatred in real world is different from hatred in a setting like Dragon Age. In real world there are laws against hatred in democratic societies, and even if they aren't you can usually choose to migrate to a different country that may be more tolerant of you. Such options don't exist in Dragon Age, because it's not an enlightened setting where personal freedom and human rights are held as sacred. Here, might makes right. The people at the top of the society have all the freedom to do as they please and those below are only as free as their rulers will allow. In such a society mages are seen as a danger by everyone.
A free mage in such a society would be no better off than a hunted animal. You can't live a normal life among others, and even if you escape into the wilderness and try to make a living there (like Solas), you will eventually be attacked again. Simply because you exist and are seen as a threat.
The only real solution is to make the society at large understand that mages are an asset and not a threat, and that cannot be achieved by armed rebellions.
I'm not saying you hold these views BUT: this sounds eerily like the sort of arguments backward leaders in conservative countries advance for banning women from public life and not allowing them to leave their homes- they might be assaulted or raped by men, they are at danger because it is so unsafe outside etc;
My response is the same: IT DOES NOT MATTER; forcefully imprisoning someone because they may be assaulted by mobs is not justified. It's even less justified when the real reason is that the mage may kill the mob in self-defence. I say that's fine, let the mob die if they want to try and murder people. I don't believe in bigots being pandered to until they change their mind and understand; the law shouldn't enable and cater to bigotry, but hammer decency into them. It would be fine if Templars existed purely to supervise (but not control) mages, so having one wander around near mages is fine, imprisonment no.
Finally, the idea of a circle is bad because forced imprisonment isn't justified because you might like your cell-mates. Even in Dragon Age where might makes right, let that apply universally, don't have this double standard where you're fine with the mob exercising it's might, but not fine with the mage defending himself against the same.
I'm not saying you hold these views BUT: this sounds eerily like the sort of arguments backward leaders in conservative countries advance for banning women from public life and not allowing them to leave their homes- they might be assaulted or raped by men, they are at danger because it is so unsafe outside etc;
Actually, it's more like the arguments in Israel that young jews shouldn't go into Palestinian territories alone because there are a number of people who hate and/or fear them and would try to kill them.
Or a warning that there are some places in major cities where police do not go without a deliberate and sizable force because the neighborhood is too dangerous.
Or quite a few other cautions about the dangers of other places and people that are, in fact, true. In Asunder, Wynn and company almost get lynched because a town is so on edge, even with a Templar there.
My response is the same: IT DOES NOT MATTER; forcefully imprisoning someone because they may be assaulted by mobs is not justified. It's even less justified when the real reason is that the mage may kill the mob in self-defence. I say that's fine, let the mob die if they want to try and murder people. I don't believe in bigots being pandered to until they change their mind and understand; the law shouldn't enable and cater to bigotry, but hammer decency into them. It would be fine if Templars existed purely to supervise (but not control) mages, so having one wander around near mages is fine, imprisonment no.
If that was the only reason mages were separated, I'd agree. But it's not, and far from it.
The Circle system also exists to protect people from mages by preventing harm (rather than attempt to respond to an abuse and attempt to bring justice after the fact), and to prevent the rise of a mage elite (which is the normal state of affairs outside of Andrastian nations, where mages are not segregated and generally beyond secular mundane accountability), and to contain and mitigate the unpreventable risk of abomination outbreaks by keeping the identified risk candidates away from ill-prepared population centers (a risk that not even the mages can prevent absolutely).
Fears of mages aren't simple bigotry towards people with a different skin but fundamentally the same abilities as your own people. There are multiple real security threats to the life and liberty of everyone involved, even the mages, thanks to the uncontrollable elements in play.
Finally, the idea of a circle is bad because forced imprisonment isn't justified because you might like your cell-mates. Even in Dragon Age where might makes right, let that apply universally, don't have this double standard where you're fine with the mob exercising it's might, but not fine with the mage defending himself against the same.
Forced separation is actually quite common when harm between groups is considered likely, and generally maintained as long as the threat is considered severe enough. The more severe the risk, the more resources invested into it and the longer the duration. Most detentions are short-term because we consider a cool-off period and direct addressing and warnings enough to deter most future threats, but longer detentions can and are warranted when the threat is believed to remain high.
There are no expire dates on a quarantine. (Which is what the abomination risk can be modeled as.)
If that was the only reason mages were separated, I'd agree. But it's not, and far from it.
The Circle system also exists to protect people from mages by preventing harm (rather than attempt to respond to an abuse and attempt to bring justice after the fact), and to prevent the rise of a mage elite (which is the normal state of affairs outside of Andrastian nations, where mages are not segregated and generally beyond secular mundane accountability), and to contain and mitigate the unpreventable risk of abomination outbreaks by keeping the identified risk candidates away from ill-prepared population centers (a risk that not even the mages can prevent absolutely).
Fears of mages aren't simple bigotry towards people with a different skin but fundamentally the same abilities as your own people. There are multiple real security threats to the life and liberty of everyone involved, even the mages, thanks to the uncontrollable elements in play.
While all this is true, I consider the only truly justifiable one of these conditions to be the one that would prevent abomination outbreaks, as that's beyond anyone's individual control. Imprisoning mages for their greater ability to do willful harm appears roughly akin to imprisoning the wealthy and politicians of our world for the same, due to their greater power; a systematic hamstringing of the powerful may certainly be an important element of many socialist philosophies, but those tend to be difficult to implement in practice, and in any case the Circle's justification in this case is based solely on a nearsighted fear of a single kind of power. As for the concern about preventing the rise of a mage elite, to me, this appears utterly hypocritical in a world without even the barest pretense of democracy or equality anywhere else, and has been implemented by the nonmage elite largely so that their own power remains uncontested.
Actually, it's more like the arguments in Israel that young jews shouldn't go into Palestinian territories alone because there are a number of people who hate and/or fear them and would try to kill them.
Or a warning that there are some places in major cities where police do not go without a deliberate and sizable force because the neighborhood is too dangerous.
Or quite a few other cautions about the dangers of other places and people that are, in fact, true. In Asunder, Wynn and company almost get lynched because a town is so on edge, even with a Templar there.
If that was the only reason mages were separated, I'd agree. But it's not, and far from it.
The Circle system also exists to protect people from mages by preventing harm (rather than attempt to respond to an abuse and attempt to bring justice after the fact), and to prevent the rise of a mage elite (which is the normal state of affairs outside of Andrastian nations, where mages are not segregated and generally beyond secular mundane accountability), and to contain and mitigate the unpreventable risk of abomination outbreaks by keeping the identified risk candidates away from ill-prepared population centers (a risk that not even the mages can prevent absolutely).
Fears of mages aren't simple bigotry towards people with a different skin but fundamentally the same abilities as your own people. There are multiple real security threats to the life and liberty of everyone involved, even the mages, thanks to the uncontrollable elements in play.
Forced separation is actually quite common when harm between groups is considered likely, and generally maintained as long as the threat is considered severe enough. The more severe the risk, the more resources invested into it and the longer the duration. Most detentions are short-term because we consider a cool-off period and direct addressing and warnings enough to deter most future threats, but longer detentions can and are warranted when the threat is believed to remain high.
There are no expire dates on a quarantine. (Which is what the abomination risk can be modeled as.)
The line of discussion was about solving the problems of the mages and specifically whether this was necessary for them. I was responding specifically to the idea that these restrictions are in the interests of the mages. They are not. Most of the justifications you provide are either arguments that mundanes would benefit from locking mages up, or arguments where mundanes benefit and mages are harmed, but there is an overall benefit (according to Templar/Circle supporters), or finally arguments that both groups are dangerous to each other, but mages should be locked up to prevent the rise of mages winning such a disagreement ('mage elite' as you phrase it), though I personally don't see why that's worse than a 'non-mage elite'.
The larger point is that those comments were specifically on the point that the real problem mages face is being locked up, not the fact that mundanes hate them (except insofar as the latter leads to attempts to lock them up). Also, as we are discovering locking powerful people up because they 'may' do something, annoys them and leads directly to 'multiple real security threats to life and liberty' for all involved as well, when they decide they don't like being locked up and will kill you if you attempt it.
Also, the question isn't whether people should venture into dangerous areas, the question is whether they should be allowed to do so if they accept the risk, especially if they are the innocent party. Especially when the authorities are making no attempts to stop the aggressors or do anything about their aggression.
While all this is true, I consider the only truly justifiable one of these conditions to be the one that would prevent abomination outbreaks, as that's beyond anyone's individual control. Imprisoning mages for their greater ability to do willful harm appears roughly akin to imprisoning the wealthy and politicians of our world for the same, due to their greater power; a systematic hamstringing of the powerful may certainly be an important element of many socialist philosophies, but those tend to be difficult to implement in practice, and in any case the Circle's justification in this case is based solely on a nearsighted fear of a single kind of power. As for the concern about preventing the rise of a mage elite, to me, this appears utterly hypocritical in a world without even the barest pretense of democracy or equality anywhere else, and has been implemented by the nonmage elite largely so that their own power remains uncontested.
That's nice. Then again, you don't live in Thedas and have to deal with the consequences of your preferences or past history.
That's nice. Then again, you don't live in Thedas and have to deal with the consequences of your preferences or past history.
True, but if we aren't trying to use some kind of outside and hopefully objective (or at least as objective as possible) view and restrict ourselves solely to views within Thedas, what makes any view more valid than any other view?
The line of discussion was about solving the problems of the mages and specifically whether this was necessary for them. I was responding specifically to the idea that these restrictions are in the interests of the mages. They are not. Most of the justifications you provide are either arguments that mundanes would benefit from locking mages up, or arguments where mundanes benefit and mages are harmed, but there is an overall benefit (according to Templar/Circle supporters), or finally arguments that both groups are dangerous to each other, but mages should be locked up to prevent the rise of mages winning such a disagreement ('mage elite' as you phrase it), though I personally don't see why that's worse than a 'non-mage elite'.
If most of the justifications provided for the system benefit the mundanes more than the mages, it's probably because the system was brought about by mundanes, for mundanes, after a long and traumatic period of mage empowerment. Societal segregation between mages and mundanes, by the absence of mages, would naturally benefit mundanes more in the hypermajority of the population. Just as societal integration and freedom would benefit mages more, if their natural abilities are allowed to give them competitive advantages in the population.
The difference between a mage elite and the non-mage elite is the difference in potential abuses and ability to remove abusers. Non-mages require institutions, organizations, and a whole lot of numbers to make comparable abuses to a small empowered mage minority.
The larger point is that those comments were specifically on the point that the real problem mages face is being locked up, not the fact that mundanes hate them (except insofar as the latter leads to attempts to lock them up). Also, as we are discovering locking powerful people up because they 'may' do something, annoys them and leads directly to 'multiple real security threats to life and liberty' for all involved as well, when they decide they don't like being locked up and will kill you if you attempt it.
The comments were addressing your skipping over of the reasons mages are segregated in the first place, similar how you skipped over many other motivations for the Circle to attack a small spectrum that, in and of itself, is not the justification for the Circle. The Circles weren't invented in a vacuum, but as a consequence of very real social pressures and pre-existing attitudes towards mages that, to some degree, still continue. The mages engaging in violent rebellion doesn't resolve the forces that saw the mages suppressed in the first place.
Your argument never really addressed that point, and instead made a selectively narrow attack on something else.
As for whether the costs of occassional mage uprising outweighs the costs of allowing integration? That's an argument, and a viewpoint, that the non-mages (who are the wider society) to decide if it's worth it or not. The Circles have functioned without a major revolt far, far longer than any real world western liberal demoracy has existed, let alone gone without a major internal conflict.
Going off of history, most nations have progressed despite the occasional or even regular uprising and incident. The costs of putting down an uprising can often be considered 'worth it' compared to the costs of allowing the uprising to succeed or empowering/appeasing the aggrieved.
Also, the question isn't whether people should venture into dangerous areas, the question is whether they should be allowed to do so if they accept the risk, especially if they are the innocent party. Especially when the authorities are making no attempts to stop the aggressors or do anything about their aggression.
This works both ways, and hinders the mages more than the mundanes.
Because of the risk of abominations, all areas around a mage can be considered a danger area. We're not talking about even basic and deliberate magical abuses and accountability here, but just the risk factor that someone, for any reason, will get desperate or stupid or ambitious and let a demon in on purpose or accident. No deliberate intent or moral failing is needed for an abomination.
If there is an allowance to enter a dangerous area of your own volition, should there not also be a right to not allow a dangerous area to be forced upon you? A right for mages to travel freely is a right to place innocent parties into a danger area.
I didn't think anyone was making any personal attacks here; that said, I find it almost impossible to believe that someone thinks a bunch of people hating them is a worse problem than by being imprisoned and enslaved. It's true that the latter is the symptom of the former, but the hate isn't actually a problem, so long as mages have their freedom, and that is the real goal here. I mean it seems pretty obvious, but the question here is simply 'would you rather have a bunch of people hate you, or would you rather be a slave for life?!'
Well, if the mages plan to live in an isolated commune cut off from the rest of the world, then I'd say they've achieved their goal - except the little we're seeing about the Hinterlands suggests they want far more than that. Hatred may seem insignificant, but it sure isn't when it inspires people to act against the undesirables.
True, but if we aren't trying to use some kind of outside and hopefully objective (or at least as objective as possible) view and restrict ourselves solely to views within Thedas, what makes any view more valid than any other view?
Xil, you just made a moral assessment based on western liberalism with analogies that didn't even include a relevant comparison to the Thedasian concerns and not even providing an accurate draw up to the Thedasian viewpoints and concerns. What part of that did you think was objective?
If you want to be objective and talk about things that we know, sure. If you want to express an opinion, that's good to- agree to disagree and all that. But if you're going to portray yourself as a progressive imperialist handing out judgement from a basis of enlightened authority, I am going to mock your pretensions of morality.
I think you are criticizing my post for failing to do something it wasn't trying. The conversation at that point was about what the problems facing mages were. I said it was only imprisonment, the other view was that the problem was mundane hatred. My post was a response to the idea that circles are for the benefit of the mages. None of my post even attempted to address the question of 'Is it justified even if mages don't benefit?', mainly because we were discussing whether a rebellion would solve mage problems.
The real point, which hasn't been addressed is this:
I am claiming to put it simply: The problem isn't mundane hated, because even if people hate mages, mages don't have to care, if they are powerful enough to maintain their freedom anyway. People have not changed their minds in 1000's of years and have their minds poisoned against mages by the same people who imprison mages. Therefore A) The hatred won't go away if we play nice and 
The hatred need not matter if we are powerful and therefore C) Fighting is the best solution.
Well, if the mages plan to live in an isolated commune cut off from the rest of the world, then I'd say they've achieved their goal - except the little we're seeing about the Hinterlands suggests they want far more than that. Hatred may seem insignificant, but it sure isn't when it inspires people to act against the undesirables.
What little we have heard about the Hinterlands suggests that the war between the mages and the templars is impacting the people caught in the middle, and that some people on both sides of the war are crossing the line.
What little we have heard about the Hinterlands suggests that the war between the mages and the templars is impacting the people caught in the middle, and that some people on both sides of the war are crossing the line.
True. Related to the "how to wage war" matter, that codex entry about the Hinterlands points out a logical situation: without any kind of supply infraestructure, both mages and templars are resorting to typical banditry tactics to get what they need, that is, pillage and plunder. Although nothing new in any given war, it's going to cost both parties whatever amount of public sympathy they may have had before the war.
In that regard, the Inquisition's strategy is in fact the correct one: take abandoned or badly-protected keeps, restore order and offer protection to the surrounding lands and by the time the failed states whose lands you have technically usurped become less "failed", you will have good defensive positions, supplies, armies and more important, the goodwill of the people.
The mages can wage war in a number of ways. But if they want to use their powers to its greatest effect they're best of fighting in ambushes and from good defensive positions. A well fortified mage stronghold would be almost impossible to capture by anyone simply because of the massive amount of firepower a group of mages can deliver.
One might say that the Templars are trained to counter magic. But from what we've seen they're quite ineffective at this. Preferring rather to gang up on lone mages and stab them repeatedly. While this tactic might work when hunting lone apostates or when storming a tower full of frightened mages it doesn't work when facing any organized force.
While some have pointed out the mages lack of skilled leadership I call bullshit. Leaders and generals can be aquired for the mages. Either because Tevinter supplies them (chaos in the south suits Tevinter fine after all), or because they exist amongst the circle mages or apostates. After all a very large amount of mages are highly educated folk, and many have no doubt taken part in military actions before (the blight, various mercenary apostates, etc).
As for numbers. While the mages are few they're not so few that they can't form an effective army, and they can summon demons, undead or hire mercenaries to act as meat-shield should it come to a more direct battle. However, the mages, as mentioned earlier, are best of fighting in ambush or defense. A force of a hundred, or a thousand mages all using their abilities at once isn't something any conventional army can deal with.
The Elves must do the same. Though they shouldn't gather in one place for too long. They must attack the weakened Orleasian troops on both sides of the civil war in order to lessen their ability to keep order once a winner emerges. They can't really create too much fuss as it is though, and it's unlikely the Dalish will ally with them. And without Dalish support I don't see the City elves winning this.
When it comes to supplies I don't see it as much of a problem. Both forces are too small to require serious supply lines and will likely be able to make do with raiding and foraging of the civilian population. Much like any army during that period of time.
Who's to say there aren't more elves like Briala, Zevran, CE warden and thier mom? These are all skilled warriors/assassins.
Sure, there are many skilled elven fighters born in the cities spread out across Thedas. But these are rarities, and are often in the service of other organizations (Zevran is or was a crow, the CE mom was almost recruited into the Wardens, the CE was recruited into the Wardens, Briala was Celene's maid and spymaster (I think)).
As a group the City Elves lack the skill, numbers, resources and tools to effectively wage war on human nations. They can't face them in battle, and lack of support from the general population means they can't fight effective guerrilla warfare.
Without support from the Dalish I don't see the elves as being more than a thorn i the Orleasians' side until the civil war can be settled and the elves put down.
Sure, there are many skilled elven fighters born in the cities spread out across Thedas. But these are rarities, and are often in the service of other organizations (Zevran is or was a crow, the CE mom was almost recruited into the Wardens, the CE was recruited into the Wardens, Briala was Celene's maid and spymaster (I think)).
As a group the City Elves lack the skill, numbers, resources and tools to effectively wage war on human nations. They can't face them in battle, and lack of support from the general population means they can't fight effective guerrilla warfare.
Without support from the Dalish I don't see the elves as being more than a thorn i the Orleasians' side until the civil war can be settled and the elves put down.
Briala did tell Mihris to inform the Dalish that she would accept their contribution for the goal of freeing the elves, so along with any city elf volunteers possessing the same martial prowess as Tabris, so I can see the People giving aid to Briala's cause. We've met enough Dalish to know that there are more than a few who wouldn't stand idly by and let their city brethren suffer.
Hopefully, Briala could be a third option in the Orlesian conflict, as I can't imagine a traditional Dalish protagonist would have much to do with either Gaspard or Celene, particularly after thousands of elves were murdered in the burning of Halamshiral. Ideally, helping free the elven kingdom of the Dales from Orlesian occupation is possible.
Poorly, I imagine.
Who's to say there aren't more elves like Briala, Zevran, CE warden and thier mom? These are all skilled warriors/assassins.
Briala and Zevran were trained since childhood by some of the most skilled Rogue guilds and organizations in Thedas, the Bards and the Crows. As for the City Elf, s/he is the PC.
Mostly, the elves just don't have any military training. Still, I imagine they could receive it. Loghain trained a unit of elves in the Ferelden-Orlais war.
Briala did tell Mihris to inform the Dalish that she would accept their contribution for the goal of freeing the elves, so along with any city elf volunteers possessing the same martial prowess as Tabris, so I can see the People giving aid to Briala's cause. We've met enough Dalish to know that there are more than a few who wouldn't stand idly by and let their city brethren suffer.
Hopefully, Briala could be a third option in the Orlesian conflict, as I can't imagine a traditional Dalish protagonist would have much to do with either Gaspard or Celene, particularly after thousands of elves were murdered in the burning of Halamshiral. Ideally, helping free the elven kingdom of the Dales from Orlesian occupation is possible.
Mm, I don't know, there are many ways it can be played out.
For example, you're starting from a pan-elven point of view. What happens if we start from a restricted Dalish point of view? To some Dalish, the events in TME could be like this:
-A clan of the People was going to achieve a major breakthrough by reopening the long-lost Eluvian network. Imagine! All our separated clans could get in touch much more often, without fearing the shemlen.
-Then several shemlen, a flat-ear and a traitor (they may not know Felassan is not Dalish) arrive and problems start. Just as the wise Keeper feared, they not only bring the shemlen civil war with them, but they unleash a sadistic spirit on the clan and steal the secret of the Eluvians.
-One poor survivor meets the shemlen who was after the evil, evil Empress who had the spirit unleashed. Despite being a bit militaristic, he was a man of his word and the traumatized First joins his merry band of avengers.
-Fights and duels, unexpected alliances against a common enemy, and in the end the flat-ear betrays everyone. After stealing the Eluvian network, which our People sacrifized so much for, she has the gall to say that she may work with us if we behave and help her.
Ok, it was a lot of oversimplification, but think about it. As stupid and xenophobic as Clan Virnehn was, they were right about the intruders bringing disaster with them. Briala and company were directly responsible of the destruction of a Dalish clan and stealing all the effort the Dalish had done to get the Eluvian work. In fact, Gaspard could say honestly that he was apalled after witnessing that horror and that he helped and was helped by the surviving First, so he's the most innocent of the Orlesian Power Trio in regards to the Dalish,
Fighting for and returning to the pre-Circle freedoms sounds like a great idea until you remember that the mages were being butchered in that time period. For all the power of a Tevinter Magister or an adept Battlemage, the universal truth is that all mages start off as weak and vulnerable as anyone else. They aren't born knowing how to cast fireballs and raise the dead. Outside of Tevinter (presumably), their first manifestation is probably accidental and as much a surprise to the new mage as it is to anyone around them. And in the post-Tevinter/pre-Chantry era, where mages were as 'free' as anyone else, that first manifestation was often the last, and it ended with the young mage getting murdered by a mob.
Modern day Thedas isn't any more enlightened. The leading Mageocracy is still a primary Bogeyman for the rest of Thedas, and anti-mage sentiment is still very high among the populace. The current behavior of both sides in the Hinterlands, and previously Kirkwall, won't have bought the mages any friends, either. "But the Templars are being bad too!", you might say, and it's true, but the Templars can be disbanded, get a name change and wear a new coat of arms and they're right back in business as the new protectors of the innocent, totally different from those other guys. Mages don't have that luxury.
There's really not much to suggest that mages winning their freedom through this rebellion won't ultimately lead to a return to that post-Tevinter era where some poor kid who just accidentally levitated a sheep gets dragged into the town square and burned to death. The current incarnation of the Circle may not be perfect, but this rebellion risks returning to a time that was so horrible for mages that they considered a life were they were nothing more than living candle-lighters as preferable.
Briala did tell Mihris to inform the Dalish that she would accept their contribution for the goal of freeing the elves, so along with any city elf volunteers possessing the same martial prowess as Tabris, so I can see the People giving aid to Briala's cause. We've met enough Dalish to know that there are more than a few who wouldn't stand idly by and let their city brethren suffer.
Hopefully, Briala could be a third option in the Orlesian conflict, as I can't imagine a traditional Dalish protagonist would have much to do with either Gaspard or Celene, particularly after thousands of elves were murdered in the burning of Halamshiral. Ideally, helping free the elven kingdom of the Dales from Orlesian occupation is possible.
As Mistic pointed out before me Briala did only bring trouble to the Dalish, and she stole their secret. While the clan in ME wasn't exactly the nicest bunch and doesn't represent the Dalish as a whole I can't really see the Dalish willing to throw themselves into battle to save the city elves. At least not in any great number, or without a great deal of convincing. The Dalish are in the end more concerned with their own survival and their own troubles than that of the City Elves.
The Dalish have after all stood by for centuries while elves have been subject to massive presecution, slavery and torment in every nation in Thedas. This is despite the fact that if the Dalish were to unite under a singel banner they would be a formidable force.
I very much hope we will be able to regain the Dales for the elves. But I think that if it is possible it will be more along the lines of a boon granted to us when we give the throne to either Celene or Gaspard, or perhaps a condition for helping one of them. After all the issue of the Orleasian throne must be settled for there to be peace.
Guest_Faerunner_*
Briala and Zevran were trained since childhood by some of the most skilled Rogue guilds and organizations in Thedas, the Bards and the Crows. As for the City Elf, s/he is the PC.
Mostly, the elves just don't have any military training. Still, I imagine they could receive it. Loghain trained a unit of elves in the Ferelden-Orlais war.
And I'm sure they all just dropped off the face of the earth instead of still being around, and many others like them that we simply haven't heard of yet, to lend assistance to the cause if needed and/or motivated. 
And I'm sure they all just dropped off the face of the earth instead of still being around, and many others like them that we simply haven't heard of yet, to lend assistance to the cause if needed and/or motivated.
What he's saying is that it's unlikely that the City Elves have enough skilled people among them to effectively combat Orleasian armies. Which I think is a very reasonable assumption given that the elven population is poorer and smaller than the human population. If there are many exceptional people among he City elves it follows that the Orleasians have even more exceptional people at their disposal.
But in the end a war won't be decided by the exceptional people. It's the grunts who do all the hard work. And the grunts of the city elves are few and far less skilled than the rank and file of the human armies.
Retour en haut
