881 réponses à ce sujet

[HK-90210]

He never says the city changed on his arrival. He's actually surprised that the city wasn't what he expected it to be. Hence "It was supposed to be golden!" The fact that he says "but it was black" instead of "it turned black" shows that it was already so upon his arrival.

 

You seem to be under the assumption that the change wasn't instantaneous. I always imagined it was like a light switch. One moment pure light, the next, corrupt and blackened. Remember that this is the Fade. It wouldn't necessarily take time for the City to be corrupted. The City had gates for a reason. The magisters broke seals using blood magic. That action alone may have corrupted the city before they ever walked through the gates. Again, there is no proof of the bolded. Only speculation. The line is ambiguous. It's doesn't provide any proof of your theory, since Corypheus CANNOT know what the Black city was like before he broke through the gates and entered through them.

 

To take this one phrase from one line from a newly-awoken Magister/Darkspawn as proof of the falsehood of centuries of scholarly tradition, in my opinion is flawed academics. Me, I'll need a little more before I throw all other sources under the bus.

 

"Darkness... ever since" is referring to his slumber, as shown by him following it up with "How.. long!?" as he puts the two and two of the strangely altered deep roads and his sleep together comes to the realization that this wasn't just an afternoon nap.

 

The Codex entry Privileged to the Wardens indicates that Corypheus was imprisoned sometime before 1004 TE(-191 Ancient). He didn't go to sleep right after breaking into the Golden City. He was a leader in the First Blight. Notice the magister's train of thought:

"But it was black... corrupt." - He saw that the Golden City wasn't Golden, but corrupted

"Darkness... ever since." -Since when? The only reference point he provides is after he broke into the Golden City. Even I will admit he way be talking about his own addled mind. He is a Darkspawn, after all. But it wasn't since the the time he was captured by the Wardens. He was a leader of the first Blight. There was time after he entered the Golden City but before he went to sleep.

"How long?" -How long since he entered the City? How long since he became a Darkspawn? How long since the Wardens imprisoned him? There's no real reference point to go on for this statement.

 

I'm not saying your interpretation of this line is without merit. I just don't think it is as strong an interpretation as you seem to think.

 

And of course the Tevinters would believe the city is golden. That's what the Old Gods promised them. A shining golden city with the power of the gods. But note that they are the only ones to claim it was golden prior to the Chantry. The elves, who also had mages and also had lore about a great city, never called it golden.

The Chantry, meanwhile, talks about how the Maker himself personally cast the Tevinter magisters out of his realm (seriously, they even have a sufficiently imposing speech attributed to him in Threnodies 8). Corypheus makes no mention of this. Or any Maker at all, really.

 

Elves only know a fraction of what they used to know. What they have compiled of their once-great civilization is jumbled and incomplete. Chantry and Tevinter sources are the only ones that go back far enough with any level of accuracy and reliability to be trusted. Even so, just because they do not call the Eternal City 'golden' doesn't mean it wasn't so. They simply focused on the fact that the City was constant, not what color it was. No matter where or when you entered the Beyond, the Eternal City was there. The fact that the elves didn't call the City 'Golden' does not mean it was not Golden. We have no sources saying "Here's what the Eternal City looked like". Just that it was there.

 

If you're willing to throw out Tevinter and Chantry sources, but attach your theories to the broken and fractured remains of elven lore, we're starting to run out of common facts to ground the discussion.

 

As to the Chanty's version that the Maker cast out the magisters, why in the world would the Maker have to show his face, or even speak to the magisters in order to cast them out? Corypheus never had to perceive the Maker in any way, shape or form in order to be kicked out and turned into a Darkspawn. The Maker's generally reclusive nature supports this. Until Andraste started preaching, there was not one single reference to the Maker in all of Thedas. If He existed before that time, He was a recluse. If He didn't exist, then this whole discussion is moot, since anything the Chantry teaches is founded on lies. Something that Bioware seems intent to neither confirm, nor deny.

[Dusksworn]

...

 

I'm going to say this again.

 

We read way too much into the rambled thoughts of a guy who just woke up and was disoriented.

 

He did not give a detailed account of events in the Black City, so we can't really assume we know how it all went down in there. Maybe he doesn't even remember all of the details.

 

I mean, the Grey Wardens had to have figured out he was intelligent somehow, yet he makes it sound like he was asleep ever since he was in the city. His mind isn't entirely together at that point, and he seems busy trying to recall the events that led him to where he was.

[Medhia_Nox]

I will assert that if the city was always black.. then the Magisters are even stupider than I thought. 

 

And suggesting that it was painted gold by Dumat to punk the Magisters is such laughable reaching. 

[Dusksworn]

I will assert that if the city was always black.. then the Magisters are even stupider than I thought. 

 

And suggesting that it was painted gold by Dumat to punk the Magisters is such laughable reaching. 

All we can accurately infer is that there is a Black City at the center of the Fade, and it's the only thing there that doesn't change and remains stable.

 

At one point the Magisters went there, expecting it to be Gold, and after they went there it was obviously Black.

 

Corypheus at some point thought aloud to himself while piecing together his own memories, obviously leaving out many details, trying to figure out how he got to where he was after a very long nap. Hopefully we'll get the chance to speak with him when he's a bit more lucid.

[dragonflight288]

Um, no. Rising tensions on both sides led to a Dalish invasion. 

 

Source?

[Br3admax]

Source?

WoT, the codex entry on the Dales, your own arguments. Take your pick. 

[Keroko]

We didn't exactly sit him down for tea and have a nice chat with him.

By the stone, I wish we could. I was so happy at him smirking and cheating death, means we still have a chance to do so... let's just hope he's in Inquisition.

You seem to be under the assumption that the change wasn't instantaneous. I always imagined it was like a light switch. One moment pure light, the next, corrupt and blackened. Remember that this is the Fade. It wouldn't necessarily take time for the City to be corrupted. The City had gates for a reason. The magisters broke seals using blood magic. That action alone may have corrupted the city before they ever walked through the gates. Again, there is no proof of the bolded. Only speculation. The line is ambiguous. It's doesn't provide any proof of your theory, since Corypheus CANNOT know what the Black city was like before he broke through the gates and entered through them.
 
To take this one phrase from one line from a newly-awoken Magister/Darkspawn as proof of the falsehood of centuries of scholarly tradition, in my opinion is flawed academics. Me, I'll need a little more before I throw all other sources under the bus.

According to the Chantry, it wasn't instantaneous. The Maker goes through a long rant before personally casting the magisters out.

And yes, I will take one phrase from one line of a newly-awoken Magister/Darkspawn over centuries of scholary tradition. Because that magister was actually there. Ancestors only knows how the scholars pieced together that the Tevinters were responsible for the darkspawn (fun fact: Non-Chantry records actually claim Dumat created the first darkspawn), but they most certainly were not there to witnesses it. Their sources are inherently less reliable as they are all based on hearsay at best.

Very, very old hearsay, as the first violation happened in -395 Ancient, and Andraste didn't start preaching about the Maker until -186 which means that even at the kindest analysis, the Maker was an unknown entity for 209 years following the first violation. And that assumes Andraste even talked about the first violation at all. If she hadn't, then that turns the clock even further and scholars wouldn't have started linking the blight with the first violation until the formal founding of the Chantry at -3 Ancient, 392 years after the actual event.

When a historical account is based on two to four centuries of hearsay, I would say its reliability can be reasonably called into question.
 

The Codex entry Privileged to the Wardens indicates that Corypheus was imprisoned sometime before 1004 TE(-191 Ancient). He didn't go to sleep right after breaking into the Golden City. He was a leader in the First Blight. Notice the magister's train of thought:
"But it was black... corrupt." - He saw that the Golden City wasn't Golden, but corrupted
"Darkness... ever since." -Since when? The only reference point he provides is after he broke into the Golden City. Even I will admit he way be talking about his own addled mind. He is a Darkspawn, after all. But it wasn't since the the time he was captured by the Wardens. He was a leader of the first Blight. There was time after he entered the Golden City but before he went to sleep.
"How long?" -How long since he entered the City? How long since he became a Darkspawn? How long since the Wardens imprisoned him? There's no real reference point to go on for this statement.
 
I'm not saying your interpretation of this line is without merit. I just don't think it is as strong an interpretation as you seem to think.

 
Hmm, good point. If we combine this with what we learned from Awakening... now, I'm going full theory-craft here, but it may be that the "darkness" he's talking about isn't just his sealing, but also the strong enchantment all darkspawn -including the Archdemon- seem to be under. But when he was sealed, he was done so with blood magic. Very likely grey warden blood magic. Much like the ritual of the Architect, this could have freed him from the song. But by the time he was freed, he was sealed, so the darkness continued. Until Hawke came.
 

Elves only know a fraction of what they used to know. What they have compiled of their once-great civilization is jumbled and incomplete. Chantry and Tevinter sources are the only ones that go back far enough with any level of accuracy and reliability to be trusted. Even so, just because they do not call the Eternal City 'golden' doesn't mean it wasn't so. They simply focused on the fact that the City was constant, not what color it was. No matter where or when you entered the Beyond, the Eternal City was there. The fact that the elves didn't call the City 'Golden' does not mean it was not Golden. We have no sources saying "Here's what the Eternal City looked like". Just that it was there.
 
If you're willing to throw out Tevinter and Chantry sources, but attach your theories to the broken and fractured remains of elven lore, we're starting to run out of common facts to ground the discussion.

I throw out the Chantry as a source because it is created post-violation, and relies on centuries old hearsay for its facts. Accounts written prior to the violation are much more reliable.

But, you are right. There is no description of the Eternal City to prove or disprove that it was or was not golden.

Pity we can't question a Spirit of Truth on this. That would be the most reliable first-hand account imaginable.
 

As to the Chanty's version that the Maker cast out the magisters, why in the world would the Maker have to show his face, or even speak to the magisters in order to cast them out? Corypheus never had to perceive the Maker in any way, shape or form in order to be kicked out and turned into a Darkspawn. The Maker's generally reclusive nature supports this. Until Andraste started preaching, there was not one single reference to the Maker in all of Thedas. If He existed before that time, He was a recluse. If He didn't exist, then this whole discussion is moot, since anything the Chantry teaches is founded on lies. Something that Bioware seems intent to neither confirm, nor deny.

It's a rather critical point, really. Because if that part is inaccurate, we can already conclude that the Chantry made at least part of the story up. Which means their account cannot be held to a higher degree of fact than the account of Corypheus.

[Patchwork]

They might not have been able to reach that part of the Fade until doing whatever it was they did but I assume they could see it and they saw it as a golden city.

 

 Having read TME I wonder if the Golden City wasn't built by ancient elves to help orientate themselves in the Beyond. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

There is no source that explicitly mentions that the rising tensions resulted in a preemptive "Dalish Invasion" (which, by the way, would be the wrong term anyway the Dales =/= the Dalish). But it does say the elves were winning the war at first.

[HK-90210]

And yes, I will take one phrase from one line of a newly-awoken Magister/Darkspawn over centuries of scholary tradition. Because that magister was actually there. Ancestors only knows how the scholars pieced together that the Tevinters were responsible for the darkspawn (fun fact: Non-Chantry records actually claim Dumat created the first darkspawn), but they most certainly were not there to witnesses it. Their sources are inherently less reliable as they are all based on hearsay at best.

 

It appears I value the use of oral history much more than you do. Fair enough, That is an agree-to-disagree, I think.

 

As to the bolded, Source? Never heard of that before. Would love to see it.

 

 

Very, very old hearsay, as the first violation happened in -395 Ancient, and Andraste didn't start preaching about the Maker until -186 which means that even at the kindest analysis, the Maker was an unknown entity for 209 years following the first violation. And that assumes Andraste even talked about the first violation at all. If she hadn't, then that turns the clock even further and scholars wouldn't have started linking the blight with the first violation until the formal founding of the Chantry at -3 Ancient, 392 years after the actual event.

When a historical account is based on two to four centuries of hearsay, I would say its reliability can be reasonably called into question.
 can already conclude that the Chantry made at least part of the story up. Which means their account cannot be held to a higher degree of fact than the account of Corypheus.

 

It is true that we do know know exactly what Andraste said about the Maker's part in the Golden City. I'm inclined to believe that she said a few things on the subject. Much like how it is said "Andraste performed many miracles", we are left with stunningly few codex entries as to specifics. Andraste taught Thedas about the Maker. I'm inclined to believe that most of the core theology in Andrastianism is based on things she said or taught. Sounds as though you feel it is primarily hearsay. This is true, but most history is. We are simply debating over which sources contain the least number of inaccuracies. I think we agree when it comes to the First Violation, Tevinter sources are the best. And Corypheus is the best actual source. Like you said, he was actually there. But we're not given very long to talk to the guy before he tries to kill us. And he doesn't say all that much, when all's said and done. His existence, however, proves that the Chantry's doctrine does contain more validity that previously thought. Nobody denies that the magisters broke into the Golden/Black City. Progress.

 

Pity we can't question a Spirit of Truth on this. That would be the most reliable first-hand account imaginable.
 

It's a rather critical point, really. Because if that part is inaccurate, we can already conclude that the Chantry made at least part of the story up. Which means their account cannot be held to a higher degree of fact than the account of Corypheus.

 

Pity we can't question a Spirit of Truth on this. That would be the most reliable first-hand account imaginable.

 
It's a rather critical point, really. Because if that part is inaccurate, we can already conclude that the Chantry made at least part of the story up. Which means their account cannot be held to a higher degree of fact than the account of Corypheus.

 

Oh, that would be a dream come true. But of course, we'd miss out on debates such as this one.

 

And the worst possible scenario is this: That Andraste was lying through her teeth, but everything the Chantry says IS based off of her teachings. They didn't make anything up or do anything dishonest, but it's all bull**** anyway.

[MisterJB]

As to the Chanty's version that the Maker cast out the magisters, why in the world would the Maker have to show his face, or even speak to the magisters in order to cast them out? Corypheus never had to perceive the Maker in any way, shape or form in order to be kicked out and turned into a Darkspawn. The Maker's generally reclusive nature supports this. Until Andraste started preaching, there was not one single reference to the Maker in all of Thedas. If He existed before that time, He was a recluse. If He didn't exist, then this whole discussion is moot, since anything the Chantry teaches is founded on lies. Something that Bioware seems intent to neither confirm, nor deny.

Actually, the Tevinter pantheon included a god that created everything except the Old Gods with them being outside of Creation. They just preferred to worship the Archdemons because they were more present; heck, they even talked to their devouts.

[Br3admax]

There is no source that explicitly mentions that the rising tensions resulted in a preemptive "Dalish Invasion" (which, by the way, would be the wrong term anyway the Dales =/= the Dalish). But it does say the elves were winning the war at first.

Yes there is. It talks about missionaries going in and elves casting them out. Then they attack Red Crossing when more Templars come. That's religious tensions, as well as those left over from the previous Blight. And yeah, I'm saying Dalish as in of the Dales. If you have a better term, I'm all ears. Round, not pointed, ears. 

[HK-90210]

Actually, the Tevinter pantheon included a god that created everything except the Old Gods with them being outside of Creation. They just preferred to worship the Archdemons because they were more present; heck, they even talked to their devouts.

 

Hm...went to the wiki, found the reference you're making, but it links to a post from 2010, retrieved in 2012, made on the old BSN. Irretrievable....

 

Wish I could have read it. The loremaster in me would have rejoiced. Finally, a way to headcanon Andrastians in Tevinter during her campaign against them.

[TheEternalStudent]

Yes there is. It talks about missionaries going in and elves casting them out. Then they attack Red Crossing when more Templars come. That's religious tensions, as well as those left over from the previous Blight. And yeah, I'm saying Dalish as in of the Dales. If you have a better term, I'm all ears. Round, not pointed, ears. 

According to the Dalish (post-fall nomads) were innocently staying uninvolved, and not letting Chantry missionaries hang around, and the Chantry sent in Templars. You know, their military force.

The Chantry claims the Dalish were worshipping their heathen gods and eating babies or whatever, and then attacked Red Crossing.
So the Dalish claim the Chantry invaded first, the Chantry claims the Dalish struck first. The tensions are at least now interpreted as religious, though whether that's how it was cast at first. Regardless the Dalish not doing anything in the Blight was a major part of the eventual war.

[Dean_the_Young]

You're using a lot of awfully loaded words here. Let's cut through the rhetoric, shall we:

 

I. The Basics

 

First and foremost, what I actually do claim can only imperfectly be translated into a breaking-and-entering metaphor. Let's phrase this carefully:

 

I do not accept any authority to enforce an injunction that I may not inquire into certain areas of knowledge.

 

-snip-

 

And this is why you remind me of the sort of archeologist who would break open the equivalent to the Yucca nuclear waste repository.

 

You can dress it up in lots of words to rationalize it and pardon it and excuse it, and you do use quite a few words to do so, but 'knowledge' is a category so wide as to excuse any form of breaking any sort of containment simply because you don't know what's inside or why it was contained in the first place. Which would include even places that store very bad things, even if you do not know what they are or what their consequences would be to make an informed cost-benefit analysis.

 

II. Risk and Ignorance

 

You also attempt to discredit my arguments by claiming that the actions resulting from my philosophy are made in ignorance.

 

 

Incorrect. I do not discredit actions made in ignorance. I merely point out that acting out of ignorance for the sheer point of breaking open secrets is not only an attitude reflected by ethnocentric tomb robbers, but also the sort that would break into a hazardous material dump site despite any cues that it is a bad idea. Since, you know, you don't accept any authority that would forbid you from discovering knowledge- which in this case could well be the knowledge of radiation poisoning and other consequences that had long since been forgotten and lost.

 

You can accept it as an implicit cost of such an attitude and carry on regardless, much like soldiers accept casualties. Being the sort of person to break into yuca mountain only discredits your argument if you think opening up sealed nuclear waste to see what's inside discredits your approach. If you don't, it discredits nothing.

 

 

So it's up to you if you'd like to accept the burdens of your position as well as the benefits. As it is, things like this
 

 

If we act to acquire a piece of knowledge, we naturally and by definition act from a position of ignorance. Is that ignorance bad? Yes of course it is, that's why we act to change it. If you claim that this ignorance should be reason enough not to act, then you ultimately invalidate any kind of empirical knowledge acquisition. Any exploration and experimentation carries a risk because it is the point and the rationale that we do not already know the results. By saying that we should not explore and experiment because this may result in disaster you also invalidate any kind of empirical knowledge acquisition. Basically, any fundamental injunction based on this rationale ends with "We are forbidden to acquire any knowledge we do not already have".

 

and
 

 

Now, you may ask where is the point where reason and consideration for large-scale wellbeing and survival limits experimentation and exploration? There is really no hard answer to that. All we can do is to be as careful as we can, honestly evaluate the risks to the best of our ability and if need be, defer further exploration to the future, but there will never be a guarantee that we won't cause a disaster with the next tiny step into the unknown. If we are not prepared to accept that remaining risk, we will stay forever as ignorant as we are now. Some ideologies claim that we should, indeed, stay as ignorant as we are now. Like any claim about what should be, neither they nor those that oppose them can claim fundamental objectivity. Which is why this is, unfortunately, ultimately a political matter decided by which ideology has the greater memetic power. I would prefer that we do not forever stay children.

 

 

are irrelevant and do not even address my points.
 

 

III. Cultural standards and politics

 

Lastly, the supposed problem of cultural standards is not a problem in the way you claim it is. All our ideas of authority, property, rights and legitimacy are dependent on culture, but what else do we have to argue from? If we dispense with them, we are left with a might makes right scenario. At the same time, I cannot be expected to accept any claim of ownership made in the name of an ideology because I can't reasonably be expected to give others unlimited authority over my actions. If some culture throws me out of their territory because I violated some silly - from my POV - taboo, they have that right. It's their territory. According to both our cultural standards, most likely. But don't tell me you would readily accept an injunction to, say, not capture and analyze the light of a star 10kpc away because some culture considers it the home of their god. Yes, cultural standards determine what we're willing to accept, but we have nothing else. The only two alternatives would be to either accept no limitations at all and indiscriminately bulldoze over cultures less powerful than my own, or accept any arbitrary limitation by the crackpot ideology of the day. Since there is no philosophically solid foundation to stand on, in practice such things are most often decided by politics, which may sometimes end in using force. In any specific case, my decision about what to do, whether to break open something in a non-ownership scenario, would be decided by pragmatism. Non-ownership does indeed mean that I don't accept any authority to enforce an injunction, but that doesn't mean I need to be reckless or needlessly offensive about it. There is no hard answer. There may be various pragmatic reasons to back off. The question of risk and ignorance is covered by the previous section.

 

 

 

This is frankly a mess, so I'll cut down to my main point which you danced around.

 

You criticize arbitrary moralistic authority but have repeatedly defended your position on arbitrary moral grounds. Doing so undermines your argument of refuting arbitrary external restrictions when you quickly cling to self-imposed arbitrary restrictions when your position is unpopular.

 

You can either resolve disreprency, or not. If you resolve it, you'll have to modify your arguments- I recommend dropping the whole religious angle. If you don't, you'll be burdened by the weight of outside observation and opinion of your own opinion. As it is, I have a less than glowing assessment of the integrity of your positions. That may sound harsh, but it means... not much, since my approval or perceptions of is irrelevant to your beliefs.

[Dean_the_Young]

While all of this is true (and you know I'm a huge fan of the Isabela rivalry path), it's also true that acting in ways that gain rivalry instead of friendship from some of these characters can compel the player to play as a Hawke that is actually pretty contemptible. Most of Aveline's rivalry points come from Hawke being a scumbag; most of Varric's come from being plain mean, if not outright psychopathically murderous. Bethany's the same way. It's also true of Sebastian to a somewhat lesser degree. With Isabela, Fenris, Anders, Carver, or Merrill, it's relatively easy to stack rivalry from situations that don't require Hawke to, well, openly metagame 'bad' behavior in order to accumulate rivalry for 'good' relationship arcs, but that isn't the case every time.
 

 

I'm totally fine with Hawke being a bit of an ass. (S)He is already remarkably corrupt as it is. If we played from the perspective of just about anyone else in Kirkwall, Hawke and Co. would be a rising mob gang who go from nobody to nightmare, and who almost everyone else in the city just has to hope indulges them.

 

Part of this might be down to how diffuse the rivalry system is: because none of your companions are outright evil, you can earn rivalry both for confronting their personal flaws and for doing crappy things. There's a fair amount of thematic confusion there that can reduce the impact of a lot of those rivalry stories.

 

I agree completely. It's present as well in the Friendship arc when thematic consistency clashes with character likes (see: liberationist Anders approving of selling Fenris into slavery), but generally less obviously so. Same sort of issue that Paragon and Renegade ran into in ME: Renegade was both pragmatic and sociopathic, while Paragon bounced between being noble and being polite and just being sympathetic, regardless of flip-flops.
 

[Keroko]

It appears I value the use of oral history much more than you do. Fair enough, That is an agree-to-disagree, I think.
 
As to the bolded, Source? Never heard of that before. Would love to see it.

Sure:

"The organized worship of the Old Gods was it its highest prior to the First Blight, when it is written that Dumat himself rose from his prison as the first Archdemon. While the Chantry insists that the darkspawn created the first Archdemon, some ancient lore says that Dumat created the first darkspawn and led them against Thedas. Either way, Old God faithful were betrayed to discover one of their gods could turn against them."
~World of Thedas, page 122

Incidentally, this touches upon something very, very clever of the Chantry. The chapter in question talks about how belief in the Old Gods waned following Dumat's rise as an Archdemon. Which makes sense, because a god turning on you does little to curry faith.

Except that the Maker also turned against his believers, but the Chantry managed to word the reasons for this and the solution to solve it in such a way that instead of losing faith, it only enhances the faith of its followers.

Pretty damned clever.
 

It is true that we do know know exactly what Andraste said about the Maker's part in the Golden City. I'm inclined to believe that she said a few things on the subject. Much like how it is said "Andraste performed many miracles", we are left with stunningly few codex entries as to specifics. Andraste taught Thedas about the Maker. I'm inclined to believe that most of the core theology in Andrastianism is based on things she said or taught. Sounds as though you feel it is primarily hearsay. This is true, but most history is. We are simply debating over which sources contain the least number of inaccuracies. I think we agree when it comes to the First Violation, Tevinter sources are the best. And Corypheus is the best actual source. Like you said, he was actually there. But we're not given very long to talk to the guy before he tries to kill us. And he doesn't say all that much, when all's said and done. His existence, however, proves that the Chantry's doctrine does contain more validity that previously thought. Nobody denies that the magisters broke into the Golden/Black City. Progress.

Agreed. Baby steps towards the truth.
 

Oh, that would be a dream come true. But of course, we'd miss out on debates such as this one.
 
And the worst possible scenario is this: That Andraste was lying through her teeth, but everything the Chantry says IS based off of her teachings. They didn't make anything up or do anything dishonest, but it's all bull**** anyway.

Wouldn't be the first time a supposed messiah turns out to be a complete liar.

And in Andraste's defence, she accomplished a lot of good with her bullshit and I'm quite confident that even if she lied, she did so with the best intentions. It's just that, like most religions, people see the opportunities for power and tend to run away with them.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Yes there is. It talks about missionaries going in and elves casting them out. Then they attack Red Crossing when more Templars come. That's religious tensions, as well as those left over from the previous Blight. And yeah, I'm saying Dalish as in of the Dales. If you have a better term, I'm all ears. Round, not pointed, ears. 

 

The word Dalish refers specifically to the clans to scattered after the Fall of Halamshiral and are separate from the elves currently living under human rule. But the elves that would become City Elves and Dalish Elves were both equally part of the Dales. So anything that the Dales did reflects on them both of them, not just the Dalish Clans. Using the same word conflates the two different concepts. The best term I can come up with is simply "elves" because I think most of them were in the Dales at the time.

 

The timeline of the Fall of the Dales is talks about various tensions erupting into border skirmishes in 2:5 Glory. Four years later, the elves raid Red Crossing. A year after that they capture Montsimmard and march on Val Royeaux. No information on the motives or objectives of either side is provided.

 

The early momentum in the war was all in favor of the elves. It doesn't say anywhere which side struck first or that the tensions led directly to the elven invasion. There was an old entry on the wiki (prior to WoT coming out and presumably based on the Prima Guide) that describes the true conflict starting when Orlais declared war on the Dales for their raid on Red Crossing, but underestimated the elven armies and were almost defeated before the Exalted March.

 

WoT itself is much more vague, but that account is still as plausible a premeditated unprovoked elven invasion.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Hm...went to the wiki, found the reference you're making, but it links to a post from 2010, retrieved in 2012, made on the old BSN. Irretrievable....

 

Wish I could have read it. The loremaster in me would have rejoiced. Finally, a way to headcanon Andrastians in Tevinter during her campaign against them.

 

Enjoy.

[Dusksworn]

Hm...went to the wiki, found the reference you're making, but it links to a post from 2010, retrieved in 2012, made on the old BSN. Irretrievable....

 

Wish I could have read it. The loremaster in me would have rejoiced. Finally, a way to headcanon Andrastians in Tevinter during her campaign against them.

It's HERE!

http://forum.bioware...uestions/page-3

The cult of the Old Gods (I don't call it "the Tevinter religion" mainly because that, to me, speaks of the Imperial Chantry -- which is based in today's Tevinter Imperium) didn't contradict the existence of the Maker. Quite the opposite. The people of ancient Tevinter were aware of the existence of the Golden City and ascribed to "the Maker" (though this Creator was not called this until the appearance of the Chantry) the creation of the world. The Old Gods were not creators, though they were supposedly also not created. The Old Gods were outside of the Creator's Plan and showed up to whisper to mankind and teach them magic. According to the Chantry, they turned mankind away from their regard for a remote Creator (who ruled remotely and never interacted with his own creations) and that this is what made the Creator abandon the Golden City... though there is argument that the cult believed the Creator had abandoned it long before and that they were adrift, rescued by the Old Gods. Modern sages say that this is attempt to explain the hardships that the early human civilizations faced, and not evidence of the Maker actually being absent.

So when Andraste showed up much, much later, she was advocating a return to the "rightful" worship of the Maker... it was not a belief that came out of nowhere.

As for the elves, their understanding of their own religion is incomplete. The whole truth was lost along with Arlathan and their immortality -- much of their lore was kept by a tradition of apprenticeship, handed down from the knowledgeable to the young, and this relied on the fact that the knowledgeable were eternal. Slaves also had less opportunity to spread their lore, so the sudden aging of the knowledgeable meant that much of this information was simply gone after several generations. This, of course, is their belief: the ancient Imperium maintained that the elves were never immortal to begin with, and that their lore was lost simply because the Imperium forbade its teaching.

Even so, the ancient elves did write things down, and so some scraps have been recovered. Thus the Dalish have slowly reassembled a religion from those pieces of lore, though how complete it is cannot be known. Even so, a few things are factual. For one, the original elven religion predates the cult of the Old Gods by a long time. Could the Old Gods have been based on the elven gods? Possibly, but there's nothing to suggest the elven gods were ever dragons, and certainly the contempt the Imperium held for elven culture makes it unlikely that they would think elven gods were worth worshipping. Consider also that it was the Old Gods that taught humanity its magic and encouraged them to destroy Arlathan -- why would elven gods do this? One could point to the Forgotten Ones (look at the codex entry on Fen'Harel for their mention) and suggest that they had reason for vengeance, though that would probably be against Fen'Harel and their good brethren and not against the elven people themselves, no? Still, all of that depends on how much of the knowledge given by Dalish tales is complete.

In terms of the elven religion's view of the Maker (or lack thereof), it might be interesting to point out that the elven creation myth doesn't stem from their gods. According to Dalish understanding, Elgar'nan and Mythal, the Father and the Mother, did not create the world. They were born of the world. The world was always there, and while it doesn't indicate the presence of a single creator that made the world it also doesn't necessarily contradict it.

The modern Chantry, however, does say that all these other gods are false. It doesn't say they never existed (though the elven legends are dismissed as just that, for the most part, but that's a carry-over of Imperial belief), but merely suggests that the Maker was long ago forgotten and that He is the only god that is worthy of true worship. The fact that His creations turned away from Him is shameful, and it is only by proving our worth to Him once again that the world will become the paradise He intended.

All of this is, of course, open to interpretation. That's part of the point of faith, if you ask me. Were some god to appear on earth and tell everyone How It Really Is that would destroy the very idea of faith -- though at that point one would have to ask: is such a being really a god? What is a god? What ideas are really worth worship? To me, that's the notion that's worth exploring. Beyond that, all conjecture is welcome.

 

[Master Warder Z_]

And thus an evil act that tore the veil because they killed unarmed people that would not convert to the Chantry. That's sounds like violent means to me.

No it's called killing Qunari that refuse to honor a treaty.

Stop being Qunari or GTFO.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

That's still a violation of the treaty itself. And evil of course. But I'm sure nobody cares about that part.

[Dusksworn]

So yeah...

 

The Tevinters believed they were entering a city that was occupied by their Creator at some time or another.

 

The idea that the concept of "the Maker" in the Golden City came out of nowhere is apparently untrue, and the religion probably wouldn't have spread half as easily if people were entirely ignorant of who this "Maker" was.

[Master Warder Z_]

That's still a violation of the treaty itself. And evil of course. But I'm sure nobody cares about that part.

Uh they were in violation if it.

._.

No Qunari in Thedas.

And considering the single Qunari fort in Rivain still exists to the current era it was not the target.

So... Presumably they weren't abiding by the terms of a treaty that came after a international war and died for being stubborn and stupid.

[Keroko]

So yeah...
 
The Tevinters believed they were entering a city that was occupied by their Creator at some time or another.
 
The idea that the concept of "the Maker" in the Golden City came out of nowhere is apparently untrue, and the religion probably wouldn't have spread half as easily if people were entirely ignorant of who this "Maker" was.

Why not? The monotheistic religions spread like wildfire in ours.
 

So... Presumably they weren't abiding by the terms of a treaty that came after a international war and died for being stubborn and stupid.

Funny how "convert or die" apparently has dozens of excuses when the Chantry does it.

They could have put the people on boats and ship them of to Par Vollen. They could have send messengers to the qunari and tell them to pick up those that were defying the treaty. They could have tried to slowly re-convert them over a long period, one villager at the time. They could have just let them be.

Instead, they chose to butcher them.