212 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I do find it puzzling in the Chantry historical account that, on one hand, the elves are vilified for isolating themselves from humanity, and the Emerald Knights turning away all humans, while on the other hand, it's also insinuated (through unsubstantiated rumor and hearsay) that humans were being sacrificed to heathen gods, despite the fact that the former contradicts the latter. It also read like a line that intended to demonize the elves of the Dales for worshiping the Creators as their gods, instead of the Maker, which fits into the Andrastian mindset of seeing people of other faiths as "heathens".

 

Well, only one of those is a true historical account, no? The latter is discredited propaganda. Which is another thing that doesn't add up about the historical narrative on the Orlesian side. There seems to be a lot of saber rattling propaganda, but then Orlais gets caught with its pants down. The propaganda says that they were gearing up for an invasion, but there was none forthcoming. So then what happened there? Did the Dales simply beat them to the punch? 

[Mistic]

Also, Clan Virnehn is atypical of the Dalish. The Dalish traditionally don't deal with spirits, as it's prohibited due to the dangerous nature of spirits. It's mentioned in WoT: "Unlike other spellcasters, Dalish mages do not use any magic involving spirits, as they believe all spirits are dangerous." (page 104)

 

Well, more than a prohibition, it sounds like a tradition. "Don't touch it, it's dangerous". Ironically, two of the more known Dalish characters have dealt with spirits in one way or another (Zathrian and Merrill).

 

There's just a lot that doesn't add up behind the accounts we have of that period in time, because the Dalish account just lacks any detail of that period whatsoever. For example:

 

1) The templars obviously cannot convert anyone; they are a military force. Sending in the templars really sounds like an invasion, except that doesn't add up because

2) The Dales won the initial skirmishes of the war, and occupied a substantial portion of Orlais. How could this happen if Orlais had struck first, and prepared itself for an invasion by massing troops? The initial conflicts took place in Orlais, which wouldn't make sense if the Orlesians invaded, unless

3) The templars were sent in by the Chantry separately from Orlais proper, on some sort of raiding and or otherwise violent religous mission; but

4) That doesn't add up, because the Chantry then refused to declare an Exalted March against the Dales until the Chantry itself was threatened at Val Royeaux. If the Chantry wanted to forcibly convert the Dales from the start, why refuse to participate in the war from the onset? On the Dalish account, it was the Chantry who started the war. 

 

Those are very good points. The initial campaign in Orlesian territory doesn't sound neither isolationist nor defensive.

 

My guess? I think that after border skirmishes and problems with missionaries, a radical party gained power in the Dales, promising that they would end the "old and useless non-interference politics" and bring glory to the nation by "teaching those shemlen imperialists a lesson they will never forget". After all, history is full of cases where paranoid defensive states launched attacks at their neighbours "just in case".

[Gervaise]

You are quite correct in saying that if Templar were sent in, it was not a military action.   The Templars purpose is to round up apostate mages.    If the modern Keepers are anything to go by, then the leaders of the Dalish were mages.   So the Templars were effectively trying to take into custody the community's leaders.   Small wonder the elves reacted by making a pre-emptive strike against the humans and then continued onward to try and reach the source of the instruction to round up their mages, the Chantry itself in Val Royeaux.

 

At this point the Chantry declared an Exalted March and the Orlesian forces would have been bolstered by loyal Circle mages and all the resident Templars.  This enabled them to neutralise the advantage the Dalish originally had with unfettered mages and take back the initiative.   The reason the elves were then rounded up and kept in alienages was to ensure that any mages in their community could be spotted at an early stage and removed, so preventing a repeat of history with elven mages leading an attack against Orlais/the Chantry. 

 

So the original action was not intended as forcible conversion per se but to round up apostates.   However, to the Dalish that was one and the same.

[In Exile]

Well, more than a prohibition, it sounds like a tradition. "Don't touch it, it's dangerous". Ironically, two of the more known Dalish characters have dealt with spirits in one way or another (Zathrian and Merrill).

 

 

Those are very good points. The initial campaign in Orlesian territory doesn't sound neither isolationist nor defensive.

 

My guess? I think that after border skirmishes and problems with missionaries, a radical party gained power in the Dales, promising that they would end the "old and useless non-interference politics" and bring glory to the nation by "teaching those shemlen imperialists a lesson they will never forget". After all, history is full of cases where paranoid defensive states launched attacks at their neighbours "just in case".

 

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Dales felt threatened by the cultural encroachment by Orlais, the repeated conversion attempts and the violation of their sovereignty, and the general hostility in being culturally and socially isolated from their neighbors and as a result, when we account for the propaganda and saber rattling across the border, felt so threatened that they believed they had to strike against Orlais while they had an advantage. 

 

It's hard to blame the Dalish for feeling how they do, seeing the situation they were in. Once they isolated themselves from their non-Orlesian human neighbours, and without building alliances e.g. with Orzammar to the exclusion of the Chantry, there wasn't much for them to do but try to be a bulwark against an expanding cultural empire. 

 

They rolled the dice, and they lost. 

[In Exile]

You are quite correct in saying that if Templar were sent in, it was not a military action.   The Templars purpose is to round up apostate mages.    If the modern Keepers are anything to go by, then the leaders of the Dalish were mages.   So the Templars were effectively trying to take into custody the community's leaders.   Small wonder the elves reacted by making a pre-emptive strike against the humans and then continued onward to try and reach the source of the instruction to round up their mages, the Chantry itself in Val Royeaux.

 

At this point the Chantry declared an Exalted March and the Orlesian forces would have been bolstered by loyal Circle mages and all the resident Templars.  This enabled them to neutralise the advantage the Dalish originally had with unfettered mages and take back the initiative.   The reason the elves were then rounded up and kept in alienages was to ensure that any mages in their community could be spotted at an early stage and removed, so preventing a repeat of history with elven mages leading an attack against Orlais/the Chantry. 

 

So the original action was not intended as forcible conversion per se but to round up apostates.   However, to the Dalish that was one and the same.

 

That's clever, and makes a certain amount of sense. It doesn't fit with the Dalish account - who saw it as conversion rather than kidnapping - but it's clearly an act of war. My issue with it is just the sheer stupidity of the plan. I mean, you'd have to think that the Chantry understood that forcibly assaulting the leaders of a country (how would they even get to them?) is going to lead to all-out war, which the Chantry (and Orlais) were totally unprepared for fighting. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I'm going to reiterate my objection to the notion that templars were ever sent into the Dales at all before the war. And the Chantry sending in templars to forcefully abduct the leaders of another nation sounds much more implausible than sending them in to protect the missionaries. I mean concerted efforts to capture Dalish Keeprs usually don't happen even today, when the Dalish clans are scattered and vulnerable. Templars generally don't bother following if they leave the vicinity of human settlements because it isn't worth the trouble of fighting through the entire clan.

 

My personal theory of the war with Orlais is that perhaps neither side specifically set out to start a war, but relations worsened and eventually each incident escalated into a greater one. Border skirmishes, eventually resulted in a raid on Red Crossing, which lead to war, which lead to the elves pushing far into Orlais. I suspect perhaps their remarkable early successes surprised even themselves, which bred a sense of hubris and inspired them to keep pressing as far as they could without anticipating the consequences.

 

Prior to WoT, The Dragon Age wiki used to place the decision start of the war on Orlais as a response to the elves attack on Red Crossing. Which resulted in the elves responding to that by defeating the Orlesian armies and capturing Montismard. Then they marched on Val Royueax and the Chantry responded to THAT by calling for an Exalted March. I think the paragraph is still in there somewhere.

 

Although this specific timeline is seemingly relegated to old lore in favour of World of Thedas' more vague interpretation, this strikes me as a very plausible account of the war.

[LobselVith8]

You are quite correct in saying that if Templar were sent in, it was not a military action.   The Templars purpose is to round up apostate mages.    If the modern Keepers are anything to go by, then the leaders of the Dalish were mages.   So the Templars were effectively trying to take into custody the community's leaders.   Small wonder the elves reacted by making a pre-emptive strike against the humans and then continued onward to try and reach the source of the instruction to round up their mages, the Chantry itself in Val Royeaux.

 

Lanaya mentions that some of the Keepers are descended from the nobility who governed the Dales, so there were most likely mages among the nobles. However, if the elves attack on Red Crossing was in retaliation to templar incursion into their sovereign kingdom, then this act can be seen as a military action. Given the elven Warden's reference to the Chantry's invasion of the Dales due to their refusal to convert, and the Dalish codex reading how the Chantry sent templars into the Dales, then the elves retaliating against this incursion doesn't make it preemptive.

 

Their codex reads, "Often portrayed as stoic and grim, the Order of Templars was created as the martial arm of the Chantry." They are the military of the Chantry, a view even Lambert shares in "Asunder". It also reads, "Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional distance, and the Order of Templars prefers soldiers with religious fervor and absolute loyalty over paragons of virtue who might question orders when it comes time to make difficult choices." Having templars encroach into a foreign nation with inhabitants who follow a "heathen" religion and have free mages is a recipe for disaster.

 

At this point the Chantry declared an Exalted March and the Orlesian forces would have been bolstered by loyal Circle mages and all the resident Templars.  This enabled them to neutralise the advantage the Dalish originally had with unfettered mages and take back the initiative.   The reason the elves were then rounded up and kept in alienages was to ensure that any mages in their community could be spotted at an early stage and removed, so preventing a repeat of history with elven mages leading an attack against Orlais/the Chantry. 

 

So the original action was not intended as forcible conversion per se but to round up apostates. However, to the Dalish that was one and the same.

 

And yet, the Chantry demanded that any elves who submitted to human rule must convert to the Andrastian Chantry, and even criminalized the elven religion in the Andrastian kingdoms. The original action may very well have been about trying to get the elves to submit to the human religion. Converting people to the worship of the Maker is precisely the reason Drakon conquered his neighbors (in a series of Exalted Marches against the neighboring city-states) and established the Chantry of Andraste.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, only one of those is a true historical account, no? The latter is discredited propaganda. Which is another thing that doesn't add up about the historical narrative on the Orlesian side. There seems to be a lot of saber rattling propaganda, but then Orlais gets caught with its pants down. The propaganda says that they were gearing up for an invasion, but there was none forthcoming. So then what happened there? Did the Dales simply beat them to the punch? 

 

Who claimed that?

 

Honestly trying to remember. The Orlais perspective is very rare in this matter, let alone their prior policies.

[LobselVith8]

I'm going to reiterate my objection to the notion that templars were ever sent into the Dales at all before the war. And the Chantry sending in templars to forcefully abduct the leaders of another nation sounds much more implausible than sending them in to protect the missionaries. I mean concerted efforts to capture Dalish Keeprs usually don't happen even today, when the Dalish clans are scattered and vulnerable. Templars generally don't bother following if they leave the vicinity of human settlements because it isn't worth the trouble of fighting through the entire clan.

 

Merrill explains that the clans are nomadic and scattered to protect them against the templars. She also says this is the reason why their mages avoid using magic in sight of outsiders. Despite this, it's still an issue; Ariane even protected her clan against a templar attack. There's the entry from Bioware about this dichotomy between the Chantry and the Dalish: "A fundamental religious divide exists between the human-dominated Chantry and the Dalish clans. Where the Chantry teaches that all existence was brought into being by the Maker, the Dalish believe in a pantheon of ancient gods. Though their gods have long since fallen silent, the Dalish keep up their observations in the hope that one day those who have kept the old ways alive will again be heard.

 

"The Keeper that leads each clan also further increases tensions with the Chantry. Apprenticed from a young age, Keepers maintain the traditions of elven magic and pass down their knowledge in turn. The Chantry regards all Keepers as apostates, mages who operate outside of the Circle of Magi, but unlike rogue mages from human society who are quickly hunted down by the templar orders, the Keepers are not so easily taken. Pity the templar who takes it into his heart to track the Dalish into the forests, thinking to take the leader of a clan prisoner."

 

Prior to WoT, The Dragon Age wiki used to place the decision start of the war on Orlais as a response to the elves attack on Red Crossing. Which resulted in the elves responding to that by defeating the Orlesian armies and capturing Montismard. Then they marched on Val Royueax and the Chantry responded to THAT by calling for an Exalted March. I think the paragraph is still in there somewhere.

 

Although this specific timeline is seemingly relegated to old lore in favour of World of Thedas' more vague interpretation, this strikes me as a very plausible account of the war.

 

WoT also mentions the attack on Red Crossing, but it doesn't take a side in the conflicting historical accounts between the humans and the elves: it never states whether or not the humans started the war (as the Dalish claim), or if the elves caused it (as the Chantry claims).

[Dean_the_Young]

Retaliating against an enemy that wants to invade and forcibly convert you does change the situation, however. If armed and armored soldiers were sent into the Dales to force conversion to the Andrastian faith, and the elves retaliated, then it can determine how one might look at either Orlais (or, conversly, how one might look upon the Dalish if they believe the Chantry account to be true); it's possible this may be the case with the Inquisitor, depending on whether the protagonist is human or elven.

No one in-universe claims the conflict began with armed and armored Chantry soldiers and Templar soldiers trying to break Dales sovereignty, though. Not even the Dalish.

 

The Dalish codex, the most commonly cited support for this, doesn't make the claim either. It's structural logic places Templars as the resolution of the conflict that scattered the Dales, not the start of a conflict that was then responded to with an Dales counter-invasion. Of course, the Dalish codex spends almost no time or attention on the conflict itself, and doesn't even mention the Red Crossing or the Exalted March. It missing quite a bit... but it's also missing any claim that Templars were breaking either.

 

The only people who have ever made the claim are fans outside the setting.

 

 

 

The context of what started the war, and why the elves were determined to defeat Orlais, colors the entire war if the elves were trying to protect their religious freedom, and their sovereign rights to govern themselves.

 

There is no such thing as religious freedom when outside religion is banned. Favoring and protecting one religion by suppressing and blocking others is religious intolerance, not religious freedom, even if the favored religion is banned in other places.

 

The cultural guardians of the Dales have about as much claim to religious freedom as the Ayatollah of Shia Iran.

[Mistic]

Lanaya mentions that some of the Keepers are descended from the nobility who governed the Dales, so there were most likely mages among the nobles. However, if the elves attack on Red Crossing was in retaliation to templar incursion into their sovereign kingdom, then this act can be seen as a military action. Given the elven Warden's reference to the Chantry's invasion of the Dales due to their refusal to convert, and the Dalish codex reading how the Chantry sent templars into the Dales, then the elves retaliating against this incursion doesn't make it preemptive.

 

Their codex reads, "Often portrayed as stoic and grim, the Order of Templars was created as the martial arm of the Chantry." They are the military of the Chantry, a view even Lambert shares in "Asunder". It also reads, "Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional distance, and the Order of Templars prefers soldiers with religious fervor and absolute loyalty over paragons of virtue who might question orders when it comes time to make difficult choices." Having templars encroach into a foreign nation with inhabitants who follow a "heathen" religion and have free mages is a recipe for disaster.

 

That is true. However, we're assuming that templars were sent before the war started. So far, the only mention of them we have is the Dalish codex entry about the Dales: "The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered."

 

As you can see, there's a huge leap between "send templars" and "driven from Halamshiral". So either Gisharel forgot to mention the whole war, going directly from the cause to the consequence, or "templars" was a way to refer to the Exalted March.

 

There is no such thing as religious freedom when outside religion is banned. Favoring and protecting one religion by suppressing and blocking others is religious intolerance, not religious freedom, even if the favored religion is banned in other places.

 

The cultural guardians of the Dales have about as much claim to religious freedom as the Ayatollah of Shia Iran.

 

Although I see your point about religious freedom being a moot point in Thedas (as in Medieval Europe), is the contemporary example a good one? Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians are recognized as official religions in Shia Iran and have some (very few) seats reserved in the Parliament. Not much to be proud of, mind you, but I seriously doubt that the original Dales religious guardians were as "permissive" as that.

[Dean_the_Young]

You are quite correct in saying that if Templar were sent in, it was not a military action.   The Templars purpose is to round up apostate mages.    If the modern Keepers are anything to go by, then the leaders of the Dalish were mages.   So the Templars were effectively trying to take into custody the community's leaders.   Small wonder the elves reacted by making a pre-emptive strike against the humans and then continued onward to try and reach the source of the instruction to round up their mages, the Chantry itself in Val Royeaux.

 

 

You realize none of this is even remotely supported by in-universe sources, right? None of the Dalish claim 'Templars kept trying to kidnap our leaders' as a causus belli.

 

 

 

 

At this point the Chantry declared an Exalted March and the Orlesian forces would have been bolstered by loyal Circle mages and all the resident Templars.  This enabled them to neutralise the advantage the Dalish originally had with unfettered mages and take back the initiative.   The reason the elves were then rounded up and kept in alienages was to ensure that any mages in their community could be spotted at an early stage and removed, so preventing a repeat of history with elven mages leading an attack against Orlais/the Chantry. 

 

There's no real lore to support these claims either: either that the balance of power was dictated by mages or that the primary motivation for the alienages was to keep mages.

 

A theory that, by the way, runs into the fact that the Chantry's terms allowed any elf to flee rather than convert and go into an alienage. Any elven mage would been free to leave, and while the Templars and Chantry have a testy relationship with the Dalish clans they aren't dedicated to going out and bringing in the Keepers either.

 

 

 

So the original action was not intended as forcible conversion per se but to round up apostates.   However, to the Dalish that was one and the same.

 

 

To date, the only motivation provided in-universe for creating the alienages was the massive refugee crisis of the scattering of the Dales.

 

The Dales weren't going to be allowed to continued, anyone who wanted to was going to be allowed to flee, but those who wouldn't would be allowed to stay or even resettled pending conditions.

[LobselVith8]

No one in-universe claims the conflict began with armed and armored Chantry soldiers and Templar soldiers trying to break Dales sovereignty, though. Not even the Dalish.

 

The elven Warden remarks on the Dales as a kingdom that was invaded because the elves refused to convert. Last time I checked, that was in-universe.

 

The Dalish codex, the most commonly cited support for this, doesn't make the claim either. It's structural logic places Templars as the resolution of the conflict that scattered the Dales, not the start of a conflict that was then responded to with an Dales counter-invasion. Of course, the Dalish codex spends almost no time or attention on the conflict itself, and doesn't even mention the Red Crossing or the Exalted March. It missing quite a bit... but it's also missing any claim that Templars were breaking either.

 

The entry reads that templars were sent in as a response to kicking out the missionaries.

 

The only people who have ever made the claim are fans outside the setting.

 

I honestly have no idea why some of you try to argue that there's only one historical account when the Dalish historical entry and the elven Warden explicitly say something entirely different. It's a bit tiresome at this point, especially when the World of Thedas doesn't even attempt to clarify which side started the war.

 

There is no such thing as religious freedom when outside religion is banned. Favoring and protecting one religion by suppressing and blocking others is religious intolerance, not religious freedom, even if the favored religion is banned in other places.

 

The elves had religious freedom to follow their own gods. The elves weren't under any obligation to convert simply because the humans wanted them to, especially not to an empire that was created by conquering their neighbors and imposing Drakon's particular Cult of the Maker as the national religion. It isn't a denial of any religious freedom not to convert, nor to keep out a group that conquered the rest of your neighbors.

 

The cultural guardians of the Dales have about as much claim to religious freedom as the Ayatollah of Shia Iran.

 

Maybe I could you more seriously if you didn't make remarks like that.

[Dean_the_Young]

 

WoT also mentions the attack on Red Crossing, but it doesn't take a side in the conflicting historical accounts between the humans and the elves: it never states whether or not the humans started the war (as the Dalish claim), or if the elves caused it (as the Chantry claims).

 

The Dalish don't claim the humans started the war.

 

The Dalish blame humans for the tensions, and hole them historically responsible for the betrayal, but they don't claim the Humans attacked first. The Dalish don't deny Red Crossing as much as frequently avoid any mention of the start of the conflict at all.

[In Exile]

Who claimed that?

 

Honestly trying to remember. The Orlais perspective is very rare in this matter, let alone their prior policies.

 

I'm not sure I follow your question. Who claimed what? That the Dalish were engaging in sacrifices, etc.? There was a codex entry to the effect that these were used as after the fact justifications for the invasion and subjugation, but that modern scholars do not take it seriously. 

 

Or do you mean where I say that the propaganda says that they were gearing up for an invasion? That was just a terrible choice of phrasing on my part. I meant to say, "I think we can infer from this type of propaganda that the Orlesians would have been preparing for an invasion..."

[LobselVith8]

You realize none of this is even remotely supported by in-universe sources, right? None of the Dalish claim 'Templars kept trying to kidnap our leaders' as a causus belli.

 

Aside from the elven Warden explicitly commenting on the Dales being invaded for religious reasons, of course.

 

There's no real lore to support these claims either: either that the balance of power was dictated by mages or that the primary motivation for the alienages was to keep mages.

 

The kingdom of the Dales was governed in a style similar to an aristocracy/oligarchy. I'm also seeing the mandatory conversion of the elves as a possible element, given what the elven Warden says, as well as the historical entries by the city elves and the Dalish commenting on the contentious issue of religion as a primary issue.

 

A theory that, by the way, runs into the fact that the Chantry's terms allowed any elf to flee rather than convert and go into an alienage. Any elven mage would been free to leave, and while the Templars and Chantry have a testy relationship with the Dalish clans they aren't dedicated to going out and bringing in the Keepers either.

 

The clans are the descendants of the elves who refused to submit; the Chantry didn't permit the Dalish to live on their own terms. The Dalish are outlaws because of their lifestyle, which is why human lords run them off their land, and why templars pursue them.

 

To date, the only motivation provided in-universe for creating the alienages was the massive refugee crisis of the scattering of the Dales.

 

The Dales weren't going to be allowed to continued, anyone who wanted to was going to be allowed to flee, but those who wouldn't would be allowed to stay or even resettled pending conditions.

 

"Allowed to flee"? Neither the Chantry account nor the Dalish account makes such a claim. Not in the codex about Alienage Culture, not in the differing codex entries about the nation of the Dales, not even in the World of Thedas.

[Mistic]

A theory that, by the way, runs into the fact that the Chantry's terms allowed any elf to flee rather than convert and go into an alienage. Any elven mage would been free to leave, and while the Templars and Chantry have a testy relationship with the Dalish clans they aren't dedicated to going out and bringing in the Keepers either.

 

That interpretation isn't supported by lore either. We have Sister Petrine's claims that it was a gesture of goodwill, and that the Chantry ordered the countries to provide refuge under the condition of conversion. In no place is said that the other option was go away free, instead of less pleasant options. Given what happened in Rivain after the Qunari Wars, it could have been "conversion or death". The fact that the Dalish haven't suffered that destiny yet is explained explicitely in-universe because of their nomadic lifestyle, which makes them a difficult prey. As in "it's not worth the time and effort", not unlike the barbarian clans bordering the Andrastian countries.

 

The entry reads that templars were sent in as a response to kicking out the missionaries.

 

Well, yeah, but have you seen what I wrote in my post? It could be easily interpreted that "templars" meant "Exalted March". We don't know. Now that I think about it, has a Dalish character ever used the words "Exalted March"?

[In Exile]

The elven Warden remarks on the Dales as a kingdom that was invaded because the elves refused to convert. Last time I checked, that was in-universe.

 

A random like that can be uttered by the protagonist isn't evidence of anything. We'd be able to have more serious conversations on the topic if you didn't use utterly ridiculous situations like these as evidence. 

[LobselVith8]

The Dalish don't claim the humans started the war.

 

And yet, the elven Warden explicitly addresses that the Dales was invaded because the elves wouldn't convert. Therefore, I'm not leaning towards the notion that there's only one single historical account. There are two historical accounts. I could understand you having an issue if I claimed that one historical account was the correct one, but I'm not doing that, so I'm perplexed as to why you're insinuating that there's only one when we know this isn't the case.

 

The Dalish blame humans for the tensions, and hole them historically responsible for the betrayal, but they don't claim the Humans attacked first. The Dalish don't deny Red Crossing as much as frequently avoid any mention of the start of the conflict at all.

 

The elven Warden can claim the Dales was invaded because the elves wouldn't convert to the faith of the Maker. The city elves remark on the Chantry having serious issues about the elves of the Dales following a different religion. The Dalish claim the militant arm of the Chantry came into their kingdom because they wouldn't convert and kicked out the Chantry's missionaries. I'm not even slightly inclined to lean towards the idea that there's only one historical account about the start of the war; even WoT doesn't take sides.

[Dean_the_Young]

The elven Warden remarks on the Dales as a kingdom that was invaded because the elves refused to convert. Last time I checked, that was in-universe.

 

Which is not

 

claims the conflict began with armed and armored Chantry soldiers and Templar soldiers trying to break Dales sovereignty,

 

The point still remains: not even the Warden (that bastion of authoritative insight) claims the conflict began with the Templars. (No, invasion isn't something that only happens at the start of the conflict.)

 

 

The entry reads that templars were sent in as a response to kicking out the missionaries.

 

It also reads that the Templars scattered the Dales. It also completely ignores the Exalted March, and Red Crossing, the Dalish activity in Orlais, and anything else in the decade conflict. It places no time reference, at all, between the missionaries and the Templars and the fall of the Dales.

 

 

I honestly have no idea why some of you try to argue that there's only one historical account when the Dalish historical entry and the elven Warden explicitly say something entirely different. It's a bit tiresome at this point, especially when the World of Thedas doesn't even attempt to clarify which side started the war.

 

The Dalish historical entry don't explicitly say something entirely different. You just have poor language skills to not realize the difference between what you claim and what your sources actually say.

 

 

The elves had religious freedom to follow their own gods. The elves weren't under any obligation to convert simply because the humans wanted them to, especially not to an empire that was created by conquering their neighbors and imposing Drakon's particular Cult of the Maker as the national religion. It isn't a denial of any religious freedom not to convert, nor to keep out a group that conquered the rest of your neighbors.

 

That is precisely how religious intolerance justifies itself. The elves didn't make any decision to convert: they weren't even being offered the option to make a choice to agree with the missionaries are not. The Dales government was ejecting and blocking missionaries from even engaging in a dialogue... and there is nothing in the lore to suggest that the missionaries were attempting any means but dialogue in their efforts. The missionaries were not a group that conquered the neighbors of the Dales.

 

It is not a denial of religious freedom to not convert. It is a denial of religious freedom to prohibit the acceptable spectrum of religions to convert to, and to forbid religious exchange outside of borders.

 

No one can make any claims about how much tolerance the Dales showed inside their borders either... but considering their external attitudes, and a distinct lack of Andrastians amongst the Dalish, I'd be surprised were it any more generous than their conduct to the missionaries.
 

 

Maybe I could you more seriously if you didn't make remarks like that.

 

My ego bleeds at your lack of approval, I assure you.

 

I mean, Shia history has a number of strong parallels to the Dales cultural history. We can get the history of disgrace and victimization, the solitary state to protect the culture and morality of a better people, the efforts to protect freedom of religion by ensuring those pesky other groups can't do too much to interfere...

 

Of course, I could have also brought up how you remind me of an ISIS militant a year ago who had an interview in which he talked about fighting for the religious freedom for people to be good muslims and freed from the religious oppression of the evil outsider. Considering how often you equate 'religious freedom' with freedom for one religion, it wouldn't be a far off comparison.

[LobselVith8]

A random like that can be uttered by the protagonist isn't evidence of anything. We'd be able to have more serious conversations on the topic if you didn't use utterly ridiculous situations like these as evidence. 

 

The protagonist is permitted to say things that fit within the context of the narrative and the established lore, so I don't find it ridiculous. You're asserting that a line that explicitly addresses an opposing point of view to the one espoused by the Chantry should be ignored, and I don't see why not. This is a thread about the Dalish, after all. Considering Dragon Age is quite a human-centric narrative, and there isn't much information about the Dalish to start with. I'm addressing different pieces of information in addressing that there are two contrary accounts.

[In Exile]

The protagonist is permitted to say things that fit within the context of the narrative and the established lore, so I don't find it ridiculous. You're asserting that a line that explicitly addresses an opposing point of view to the one espoused by the Chantry should be ignored, and I don't see why not. This is a thread about the Dalish, after all. Considering Dragon Age is quite a human-centric narrative, and there isn't much information about the Dalish to start with. I'm addressing different pieces of information in addressing that there are two contrary accounts.

 

The protagonist is allowed to express beliefs and opinions. An expressed belief or opinion is not proof of the facts underlying that opinion. 

You could say: the Warden has a dialogue option that suggests the templars invaded the Dales, suggesting that there is some independent source for this view that may, possibly, be historical. That is a reasonable inference from the existence of the dialogue line, building on the proposition that the Protagonist lines are designed to be consistent with the lore. It is, in other words, incredible weak circumstantial proof for the existence of a historical account we have never seen. It is not historical evidence. It is not a historical account. 

 

But, of course, there's no reason why the Protagonist should only be allowed to express opinions that are lore-consistent. Stating that all mages are dangerous, for example, is not lore-consistent (I would argue; we could have a debate on this). But it is an opinion you can express. 

 

What is pure gibberish logic, however, is to leap from the expression of an unsourced opinion to the conclusion that there is historical proof from it. That is the problem. I am not saying that the line should be ignored. I am saying that your train of logic derailed four stops before you reached your conclusion. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Merrill explains that the clans are nomadic and scattered to protect them against the templars. She also says this is the reason why their mages avoid using magic in sight of outsiders. Despite this, it's still an issue; Ariane even protected her clan against a templar attack. There's the entry from Bioware about this dichotomy between the Chantry and the Dalish: "A fundamental religious divide exists between the human-dominated Chantry and the Dalish clans. Where the Chantry teaches that all existence was brought into being by the Maker, the Dalish believe in a pantheon of ancient gods. Though their gods have long since fallen silent, the Dalish keep up their observations in the hope that one day those who have kept the old ways alive will again be heard.

 

"The Keeper that leads each clan also further increases tensions with the Chantry. Apprenticed from a young age, Keepers maintain the traditions of elven magic and pass down their knowledge in turn. The Chantry regards all Keepers as apostates, mages who operate outside of the Circle of Magi, but unlike rogue mages from human society who are quickly hunted down by the templar orders, the Keepers are not so easily taken. Pity the templar who takes it into his heart to track the Dalish into the forests, thinking to take the leader of a clan prisoner."

 

The same conversion where Merrill states that templars pose a threat to the Dalish, is the same conversation that establishes that they usually don't bother them if they keep to themselves. Her exact words are "They usually don't pursue us if we stay away from cities and towns and keep moving."

 

And I actually remember that other Bioware entry. I think it tends to support the same conclusion. Other apostates might be easily hunted, but a Dalish Keeper is much more trouble than it's worth to hunt them down.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm not sure I follow your question. Who claimed what? That the Dalish were engaging in sacrifices, etc.? There was a codex entry to the effect that these were used as after the fact justifications for the invasion and subjugation, but that modern scholars do not take it seriously. 

 

Or do you mean where I say that the propaganda says that they were gearing up for an invasion? That was just a terrible choice of phrasing on my part. I meant to say, "I think we can infer from this type of propaganda that the Orlesians would have been preparing for an invasion..."

 

No, the part about someone claiming the propoganda about preparing for an invasion. I'm not sure what you were referring to.

 

That interpretation isn't supported by lore either. We have Sister Petrine's claims that it was a gesture of goodwill, and that the Chantry ordered the countries to provide refuge under the condition of conversion. In no place is said that the other option was go away free, instead of less pleasant options. Given what happened in Rivain after the Qunari Wars, it could have been "conversion or death". The fact that the Dalish haven't suffered that destiny yet is explained explicitely in-universe because of their nomadic lifestyle, which makes them a difficult prey. As in "it's not worth the time and effort", not unlike the barbarian clans bordering the Andrastian countries.

 

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that the Dalish were allowed to flee, but I may be thinking of policy towards the current Dalish instead.

 

And yet, the elven Warden explicitly addresses that the Dales was invaded because the elves wouldn't convert. Therefore, I'm not leaning towards the notion that there's only one single historical account. There are two historical accounts. I could understand you having an issue if I claimed that one historical account was the correct one, but I'm not doing that, so I'm perplexed as to why you're insinuating that there's only one when we know this isn't the case.

 

Because there's no contradiction between the Warden claiming the Humans invaded because the Dalish wouldn't convert and the undisputed lore that the Humans invaded after Red Crossing, and yet you repeatedly maintain that the Humans invaded first.

 

 

 

 

 

The elven Warden can claim the Dales was invaded because the elves wouldn't convert to the faith of the Maker. The city elves remark on the Chantry having serious issues about the elves of the Dales following a different religion. The Dalish claim the militant arm of the Chantry came into their kingdom because they wouldn't convert and kicked out the Chantry's missionaries. I'm not even slightly inclined to lean towards the idea that there's only one historical account about the start of the war; even WoT doesn't take sides.

 

You're not inclined towards many things, including skepticism on the player character's objective authority on such things.

 

 

 

A random like that can be uttered by the protagonist isn't evidence of anything. We'd be able to have more serious conversations on the topic if you didn't use utterly ridiculous situations like these as evidence. 

 

He'd probably take you more seriously if you didn't make remarks like that.

[LobselVith8]

Which is not

 

claims the conflict began with armed and armored Chantry soldiers and Templar soldiers trying to break Dales sovereignty,

 

The point still remains: not even the Warden (that bastion of authoritative insight) claims the conflict began with the Templars. (No, invasion isn't something that only happens at the start of the conflict.)

 

It also reads that the Templars scattered the Dales. It also completely ignores the Exalted March, and Red Crossing, the Dalish activity in Orlais, and anything else in the decade conflict. It places no time reference, at all, between the missionaries and the Templars and the fall of the Dales.

 

Actually, the line referring the templars comes right after the missionaries being booted from the Dales. The fall of the Dales takes place afterward, in a separate line.

 

It also reads that the Templars scattered the Dales. It also completely ignores the Exalted March, and Red Crossing, the Dalish activity in Orlais, and anything else in the decade conflict. It places no time reference, at all, between the missionaries and the Templars and the fall of the Dales.

 

I'd imagine if that was the intent, it would be in the same line as the fall of the Dales, instead of addressed as a response to kicking out the missionaries.

 

The Dalish historical entry don't explicitly say something entirely different. You just have poor language skills to not realize the difference between what you claim and what your sources actually say.

 

Maybe you could try formulating actual retorts instead of insults, since all I'm seeing here is you claiming that there's only one historical account about what happened, and even World of Thedas never explicitly reads that the elves started the war.

 

That is precisely how religious intolerance justifies itself. The elves didn't make any decision to convert: they weren't even being offered the option to make a choice to agree with the missionaries are not. The Dales government was ejecting and blocking missionaries from even engaging in a dialogue... and there is nothing in the lore to suggest that the missionaries were attempting any means but dialogue in their efforts. The missionaries were not a group that conquered the neighbors of the Dales.

 

It is not a denial of religious freedom to not convert. It is a denial of religious freedom to prohibit the acceptable spectrum of religions to convert to, and to forbid religious exchange outside of borders.

 

Worship of the Maker is precisely the reason Drakon conquered his neighbors. "Such was the power of the Maker's word that the young King Drakon undertook a series of Exalted Marches meant to unite the city-states and create an empire solely dedicated to the Maker's will. The Orlesian Empire became the seat of the Chantry's power, the Grand Cathedral in Val Royeaux the source of the movement that birthed the organized Chantry as we know it today." Interestingly enough, Emperor Drakon's difficulties with the neighboring kingdom of the Dales are the reason he couldn't conquer the Free Marches, and why he utilized missionaries to spread the word of the Maker. Given that the conquest of their neighbors to establish an empire under the worship of the Maker, I'm not inclined to share your view on the elves wanting to be left alone.

 

Of course, I could have also brought up how you remind me of an ISIS militant a year ago who had an interview in which he talked about fighting for the religious freedom for people to be good muslims and freed from the religious oppression of the evil outsider. Considering how often you equate 'religious freedom' with freedom for one religion, it wouldn't be a far off comparison.

 

You could always try maintaining your composure in discussions instead, and not using language to insult people who take opposing views to your own.