Yes, actually. While there are several ways a City Elf would be in attendance, I wouldn't want to rob Dalish fans the opportunity to be a Dalish.
I don't think they have to be in attendance.
The Dalish Clan could just be settled down close enough to be caught in the blast radius...or the Dalish Inquisitor could be out scouting/picking herbs and got too close (if you don't like the idea of the whole clan dying).
I initially thought as maybe a guard for a Grand Cleric going to the conference, but wouldn't they use Templars for that?
Yeah, those would be loyal Templars or Seekers.
Okay, I'll try my best to explain.
The way I see it, Dalish being aggressors in statistically only a handful of situations compared to the overall marginalization they face at the hands of humans is not comparable, and certainly not "proof" that they brought it on themselves. Which is why your stance is rubbing wrong. The standards you want to hold Dalish to are unreasonable in both bootstraps and realism. It's like saying one elf who throws a stone at a human and injures or kills them is responsible for humans purging an alienage in retaliation, which also ignores the inherent power imbalance in effect.
I think I see the problem. See, I see them as the aggressors, justified or not, in the Dales-Orlais War whereas others think that Orlais and the Chantry attacked solely because they don't like the Dales culture. So in that sense I don't see them as being innocent victims of an overzealous nation and church. So just like how all the elf hostility goes back to the fall of the Dales, I see all human hostility going back to the Dales launching a war on them. So no double standard there. Both sides are equally at fault for the pain they inflict on the other side.
So in short: I hold both sides to equal standards.
I don't think they have to be in attendance.
The Dalish Clan could just be settled down close enough to be caught in the blast radius...or the Dalish Inquisitor could be out scouting/picking herbs and got too close (if you don't like the idea of the whole clan dying).
I agree that the Inquisitor wasn't there but simply caught in the blast radius. But then that provides no reasons for why only Dalish is available. Both should have been options.
I'm sure enslaved Africans willingly gave up their culture too. That their white masters, whom they were wholly dependent on, considered their religious beliefs and traditions (among other things) savage and inferior had absolutely nothing to do with it, right?
Both Native Americans and black slaves were forced to assimilate into white Christian society. They were punished for not speaking English, and they were given English names. They were forced to attend church. Anti-elf attitudes are endemic to Andrastian human society, which is why the only way for the elves to keep elven culture alive is to remove themselves from that society completely. When society continually pushes a message, it's difficult to keep it from overtaking you to some degree.
Very well said 
I agree that the Inquisitor wasn't there but simply caught in the blast radius. But then that provides no reasons for why only Dalish is available. Both should have been options.
Elves aren't even that popular to begin with. They don't need 2 variations... by this logic we should also have Vashoth, Tal'Vashoth, Qunari, Human Commoner, Casteless, and Dwarven Noble options. This isn't Origins.
I agree that the Inquisitor wasn't there but simply caught in the blast radius. But then that provides no reasons for why only Dalish is available. Both should have been options.
I think it would be less likely for a city elf to be in that position.
They may also have went with the Dalish Inquisitor to provide more perspective of that viewpoint in this game (perhaps we don't see many Dalish otherwise).
A Dalish clan in Ferelden may also be affected by the Mage/Templar war and this could be the Inquisitor's clan. They could have been caught in the crossfire or possibly even aided the mages. This would also explain why the Dalish were invited to the peace conference though it would likely just be the Keeper and the First (if the Inquisitor is a mage) or the Keeper and a bodyguard (for non-mage Inquisitor).
Why is it less likely that an Andrastean city elf would be at an Andrastean peace conference in an Andrastean holy place, than that a Dalish would be there?
I think I see the problem. See, I see them as the aggressors, justified or not, in the Dales-Orlais War whereas others think that Orlais and the Chantry attacked solely because they don't like the Dales culture. So in that sense I don't see them as being innocent victims of an overzealous nation and church. So just like how all the elf hostility goes back to the fall of the Dales, I see all human hostility going back to the Dales launching a war on them. So no double standard there. Both sides are equally at fault for the pain they inflict on the other side.
So in short: I hold both sides to equal standards.
Thing is though, the result of that is what we have now: elves are brutally marginalized. In no way is this remotely a justified outcome, let alone equal. The sticking point here is really that there was a relatively equal playing field in the beginning, but that is no longer the case and hasn't been the case for centuries now. And also? When exactly would you consider the elves to have earned the right to resist occupation and marginalization? Because from what I'm reading, you keep moving the goalposts and arbitrary standards to keep the status quo as is for what is essentially a centuries old grudge that neither side even remembers in detail anymore.
Why is it less likely that an Andrastean city elf would be at an Andrastean peace conference in an Andrastean holy place, than that a Dalish would be there?
I'm saying it's less likely they would be not at the conference but caught in the blast radius.
The NA's of Thedas, very much so. 
I don't think they have to be in attendance.
The Dalish Clan could just be settled down close enough to be caught in the blast radius...or the Dalish Inquisitor could be out scouting/picking herbs and got too close (if you don't like the idea of the whole clan dying).
True, the protagonist may not have any involvement in the meeting between the Chantry and the mages. The Dalish protagonist could be there to investigate the apparition of Shartan who appears during the trials; it's entirely plausible the Keeper or the hahren would be curious about this.
The Vumba Clan, where fake knife ears don't make it back.
I think I see the problem. See, I see them as the aggressors, justified or not, in the Dales-Orlais War whereas others think that Orlais and the Chantry attacked solely because they don't like the Dales culture. So in that sense I don't see them as being innocent victims of an overzealous nation and church. So just like how all the elf hostility goes back to the fall of the Dales, I see all human hostility going back to the Dales launching a war on them. So no double standard there. Both sides are equally at fault for the pain they inflict on the other side.
So in short: I hold both sides to equal standards.
I hold both sides to equal standards... but the Chantry definitely showed its hostile intent and military penetrations first.
True, the protagonist may not have any involvement in the meeting between the Chantry and the mages. The Dalish protagonist could be there to investigate the apparition of Shartan who appears during the trials; it's entirely plausible the Keeper or the hahren would be curious about this.
That could be something.
I'm assuming a Dalish would have to sneak into see that and I wonder why you'd choose to do that when there are lots of people gathered at the conference.
Yeah, those would be loyal Templars or Seekers.
Because loyalty to the original mandate of their order over that of an official whom has betrayed them is "true" loyalty.
Where is the peace conference being held at?
Where is the peace conference being held at?
The Temple at Haven where the Urn of Sacred Ashes was found.
I hold both sides to equal standards... but the Chantry definitely showed its hostile intent and military penetrations first.
Yeah. The key to actually holding both sides to the same standards is taking into account the context, not ignoring it whenever convenient. The Chantry are explicitly colonizers who use the convenient excuses of their religious superiority to enact violence upon "heathens" and then justify it with a thinly veiled Manifest Destiny. And really, viewing the Dalish response to that as anything but reacting to a very real threat to their culture and lands is ridiculous. What should they have done? Welcomed the humans into their midst and just given up their homelands without a fight?
That could be something.
I'm assuming a Dalish would have to sneak into see that and I wonder why you'd choose to do that when there are lots of people gathered at the conference.
I suppose it depends on how things are structured, both in the town and in the ruins. Presumably, Kolgrim and his Cult of Andraste could be gone, along with the Dragon Andraste who was near the temple. What happened to the people of Haven, and who is actually in charge, might effect how the Dalish protagonist gains entry into the temple, and whether or not there could be any violent confrontations with members of the Chantry who might try to bar a "heathen" from this place.
Yeah. The key to actually holding both sides to the same standards is taking into account the context, not ignoring it whenever convenient. The Chantry are explicitly colonizers who use the convenient excuses of their religious superiority to enact violence upon "heathens" and then justify it with a thinly veiled Manifest Destiny. And really, viewing the Dalish response to that as anything but reacting to a very real threat to their culture and lands is ridiculous. What should they have done? Welcomed the humans into their midst and just given up their homelands without a fight?
Context? The Context of Human settlements coming under assault, innocent civilians being murdered along with Chantry Representatives isn't a clear enough justification for war? The Cult of Andraste granted the Dales to the Elves, the Precursor to the Modern day Chantry, the Chantry has every right to "retake" the "elves" Land.
So there really isn't any of the context you try to proclaim to, the Chantry doesn't need to colonize or invade territories it can cite ownership of.
Sort of like Kurdistan being a part of Iraq, and Iraq having the sovereign right to claim such a state and territory does not exist.
I suppose it depends on how things are structured, both in the town and in the ruins. Presumably, Kolgrim and his Cult of Andraste could be gone, along with the Dragon Andraste who was near the temple. What happened to the people of Haven, and who is actually in charge, might effect how the Dalish protagonist gains entry into the temple, and whether or not there could be any violent confrontations with members of the Chantry who might try to bar a "heathen" from this place.
It seems like the Chantry will be in charge regardless of what the Warden did there.
Maybe that part of the temple is usually sealed off but will be open during the peace conference and this provides an opportunity for a Dalish to sneak in?
Context? The Context of Human settlements coming under assault, innocent civilians being murdered along with Chantry Representatives isn't a clear enough justification for war? The Cult of Andraste granted the Dales to the Elves, the Precursor to the Modern day Chantry, the Chantry has every right to "retake" the "elves" Land.
So there really isn't any of the context you try to proclaim to, the Chantry doesn't need to colonize or invade territories it can cite ownership of.
Sort of like Kurdistan being a part of Iraq, and Iraq having the sovereign right to claim such a state and territory does not exist.
That's incredibly thin logic. First, you're claiming that Andraste's cult only gave the Dales on a loan, instead of transferring ownership. Second, the Chantry being any kind of successor to Andraste was invented out of whole cloth by Drakon to give his empire a religious mandate for conquest. And third, the Chantry was already making aggressive moves against the Dales.
Yeah. The key to actually holding both sides to the same standards is taking into account the context, not ignoring it whenever convenient. The Chantry are explicitly colonizers who use the convenient excuses of their religious superiority to enact violence upon "heathens" and then justify it with a thinly veiled Manifest Destiny. And really, viewing the Dalish response to that as anything but reacting to a very real threat to their culture and lands is ridiculous. What should they have done? Welcomed the humans into their midst and just given up their homelands without a fight?
Another great post. I only wish I wasn't out of likes. If the Dalish historical account is correct, then it's reasonable that the elves would have retaliated against an invasion of their homeland. The Orlesian Empire was created through conquest, as Gentivi wrote: "There were many converts, including powerful people in the Imperium and in the city-states of what is now Orlais. 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." There's also the history of Orlais to conquer other nations, as Kirkwall, Nevarra, and Ferelden can attest to, and the symbiotic relationship between the Chantry and Orlais is precisely the reason why Loghain and Maric contemplated dissolving it locally after emancipating Ferelden, given how the Chantry supported the occupation.
Context? The Context of Human settlements coming under assault, innocent civilians being murdered along with Chantry Representatives isn't a clear enough justification for war? The Cult of Andraste granted the Dales to the Elves, the Precursor to the Modern day Chantry, the Chantry has every right to "retake" the "elves" Land.
So there really isn't any of the context you try to proclaim to, the Chantry doesn't need to colonize or invade territories it can cite ownership of.
Sort of like Kurdistan being a part of Iraq, and Iraq having the sovereign right to claim such a state and territory does not exist.
And here we have an example of cherrypicking context to suit an obtuse viewpoint.
Retour en haut