there are clans who don't kick out any additional mages.
As to why some clans do this, Merrill already addressed that part of the reason why the Dalish are nomadic is because of the templars, who hunt down apostates.
So you are arguing, what? That without templars, the Dalish wouldn't have to kick out their mages or shuffle them around? And that Vivienne misses this point?
I think you are projecting some of your roleplay over the facts of the game.
Vivienne's dialogue does not run over the dialogue of the main character. Vivienne speaks, the Inquisitor speaks, then Vivienne voices her approval or disapproval. Then the conversation moves on. The game does not provide an opportunity of the conversation to be continued.
Actially, the Inquisitor's point was about the absense of templars among the Dalish, not about magic itself. Even Merrill says that magic is dangerous; she simply doesn't think its sufficient cause to subjugate mages into Chantry controlled Circles. A view that is shared by the Dalish, who view magic as a "gift of the Creators".
Except that's not her point, nor does it address the Inquisitor's point about not needing the templars.
Except the Inquisitor says this wasn't the case with his clan, and Zathrian's clan had three mages already then they invited Aneirin to join them.
You are ignoring the context of the conversation to get around the fact that you are simply angry that Vivienne spoke over your character (oh the horror) and wasn't respectful enough about the Dalish for your liking.
As far as I am aware we have never heard of a clan that has more than a handful of mages just because every clan does it differently does not mean that they do not take steps to protect themselves from the dangers of magic and one of those steps ls limiting the amount of mages in the clan. Most if not all clans seem to do this, Aneirin is a very special case because he was on the run from the templars, had already been trained by the circle and doesn't actually seem to permanently live with the clan.
So the PC's point about the way the Dalish handle it is an incredibly bad one seeing as the Inquisition just opened it's doors to hundreds of mages and already had quite a few mages. Even with the few mages they have the Dalish take steps to protect themselves, this is what she was saying. Maybe Bioware could have given us a chance to present a better argument but that argument was in no way a valid one.
Vivienne addressing what she's heard makes it heresay, and she refutes the Inquisitor correcting her based on what she's heard. In other words, she thinks she knows more about the Dalish than a Dalish elf because of what she's heard from others, which is absurd.
Vivienne isn't right; she can't even tolerate being corrected about heresay when she's speaking to someone who lived their entire life among the Dalish.
Why is the PC's experiences of the Dalish more valid than Minaeve's? Where you really "correcting" her or where you providing an alternative experience?
So you are arguing, what? That without templars, the Dalish wouldn't have to kick out their mages or shuffle them around? And that Vivienne misses this point?
Why is the PC's experiences of the Dalish and more valid than Minaeve's? Where you really "correcting" her or where you providing an alternative experience?
This was essentially what I was trying to get at. Your character's experience isn't any more valid/right/true than any other Dalish's.
In other words, Vivienne continues with her views based on heresay, despite what the Inquisitor said.
Vivienne's opinionated. That said, I don't know anyone who changes their views after one conversation with someone who is conflict with them.
And the Inquisitor's experiences are of ONE clan. Why would Vivienne believe other Dalish clans don't kick out their mages just because the Inquisitor's clan doesn't?
And Vivienne's views go beyond just her experiences with the Dalish, but her personal experiences with the circle and how she knows mages are treated in other areas of Thedas.
I honestly don't understand how you expect Vivienne's views to change based on one sentence your Inquisitor speaks.
Minave story was an in direct reta con of how the Dalish have been handled in the past two games. In fact, I would say her views on the Dalish are wrong, so are Minave's views of the Templars.
It's not a reta con. It's been said in the previous games that the Dalish move their mages around so there aren't too many mages in one clan. The question has always been there of what happens where are there no clans for the mages to move to. Minave answers that question.
Minave story was an in direct reta con of how the Dalish have been handled in the past two games. In fact, I would say her views on the Dalish are wrong, so are Minave's views of the Templars.
Her views are "wrong" because she somehow wasn't kicked out of her clan, she just ... viewed that incorrectly? 
lol Same with the Inquisitor who can acknowledge that mages could get das boot if there was not another clan to send 'em to?
I don't even ... xD
Anyways, I did a quick video of the contentious convo. Loading on Youtube as we speak.
You are ignoring the context of the conversation to get around the fact that you are simply angry that Vivienne spoke over your character (oh the horror) and wasn't respectful enough about the Dalish for your liking.
As far as I am aware we have never heard of a clan that has more than a handful of mages just because every clan does it differently does not mean that they do not take steps to protect themselves from the dangers of magic and one of those steps ls limiting the amount of mages in the clan. Most if not all clans seem to do this, Aneirin is a very special case because he was on the run from the templars, had already been trained by the circle and doesn't actually seem to permanently live with the clan.
So the PC's point about the way the Dalish handle it is an incredibly bad one seeing as the Inquisition just opened it's doors to hundreds of mages and already had quite a few mages. Even with the few mages they have the Dalish take steps to protect themselves, this is what she was saying.
Maybe Bioware could have given us a chance to present a better argument but that argument was in no way a valid one.
Why is the PC's experiences of the Dalish and more valid than Minaeve's? Where you really "correcting" her or where you providing an alternative experience?
Face plams, it's goes against the past two games where their was four mages in the clan and the fact you said it yourself they move mages around not throw them out in the cold.Vivienne's opinionated. That said, I don't know anyone who changes their views after one conversation with someone who is conflict with them.
And the Inquisitor's experiences are of ONE clan. Why would Vivienne believe other Dalish clans don't kick out their mages just because the Inquisitor's clan doesn't?
And Vivienne's views go beyond just her experiences with the Dalish, but her personal experiences with the circle and how she knows mages are treated in other areas of Thedas.
I honestly don't understand how you expect Vivienne's views to change based on one sentence your Inquisitor speaks.
It's not a reta con. It's been said in the previous games that the Dalish move their mages around so there aren't too many mages in one clan. The question has always been there of what happens where are there no clans for the mages to move to. Minave answers that question.
Can we also recognize that Aenerin is hardly solid proof of anything given that he lives away from the Clan. His 'membership' in Zathrian's clan is vague. Some people interpret it as him being a full member of the clan; others interpret it as him being a loner who the clan is aware of. I'm in the latter group. Until I read it here, I never considered him part of that clan at all. I always assumed that he was like the crazy hermit and just lived alone in the forest. So he's hardly convincing proof of anything. Especially since he seems like he's the only eidence of more than 3 mages in a clan.
Those mages who are left after she's waged war on them, anyway.
That and the fact that the epilogue says that the people of Thedas were all saying that the chantrys day were numbered.
I can't believe that Bioware seems to be trying to make Viv's divine ending the canon one...
I'll go with the softer moments thing and leave my two cents at the door...
That is a problem indeed, but this is why I said that people can't separate their inability to react to Vivienne's behavior the way they want and Vivienne's character as she is written and that she could have been done better if she was not an optional character. People can say that her being smarter than the PC should be better developed by creating more opportunities for interaction up to the point where no debate can exist (because that's the point where the whole furniture thing takes place) You can say that a big chunk of tension is missing and it is true. But saying that her being catty means she is poorly written or that she should do something else than be catty, because that is inappropriate in some fashion is well....weird.
I've never said that though.
My issues lie with the Inquisitor's behavior in that scenario and how it merely serves to prop her up.
The PC's is Dalish so her views are more correct not based on hearsay and a story that was implanted by the writers to ****** on the Dalish views on mages, which goes against the past two games.
The PC's Dalish views can only be based on their experiences of their clan. That does not make them "more correct" than other Dalish, such as Minaeve's when it comes their experiences of their own clan.
Face plams, it's goes against the past two games where their was four mages in the clan and the fact you said it yourself they move mages around not throw them out in the cold.
So basically, there was something in the game you didn't like because it messed with your image of the Dalish so you decide to call it a reta con so you can act like isn't relevant. *slow clap*
Vivienne's opinionated. That said, I don't know anyone who changes their views after one conversation with someone who is conflict with them.
And the Inquisitor's experiences are of ONE clan. Why would Vivienne believe other Dalish clans don't kick out their mages just because the Inquisitor's clan doesn't?
And Vivienne's views go beyond just her experiences with the Dalish, but her personal experiences with the circle and how she knows mages are treated in other areas of Thedas.
I honestly don't understand how you expect Vivienne's views to change based on one sentence your Inquisitor speaks.
It's not a reta con. It's been said in the previous games that the Dalish move their mages around so there aren't too many mages in one clan. The question has always been there of what happens where are there no clans for the mages to move to. Minave answers that question.
The PC's is Dalish so her views are more correct not based on hearsay and a story that was implanted by the writers to ****** on the Dalish views on mages, which goes against the past two games.
Well, both Felesan and Solas have said that the Dalish are growing increasingly clannish. The ways of one clan are not indicitive of how others are likely to behave. The three-mage rule may not be hard-and fast. Similarly, some Dalish may be more open to dealing with humans, while others attack on sight, and still others just stay out of their way.
There is no monolithic "Dalish Culture", if there ever was one to begin with.
Can we also recognize that Aenerin is hardly solid proof of anything given that he lives away from the Clan. His 'membership' in Zathrian's clan is vague. Some people interpret it as him being a full member of the clan; others interpret it as him being a loner who the clan is aware of. I'm in the latter group. Until I read it here, I never considered him part of that clan at all. I always assumed that he was like the crazy hermit and just lived alone in the forest. So he's hardly convincing proof of anything. Especially since he seems like he's the only eidence of more than 3 mages in a clan.
When that person is a member of said ethnic group and corrects your heresay, I don't see why you would continue to think you were correct. Thinking that an entire ethnic group of people are the same is problematic.
You do realize that Solas himself notes that the Dalish are very scattered and all seem to be forming their own little subcultures right? So no Viv can't make a generalization about the Dalish but neither can the Inquisitor 'correct' a generalization about a people they can't be terribly familiar with outside of their own clan.
I disliked it because it was basiclly a retacon, and not a good one at that since it basically went against the lore in previous games.The PC's Dalish views can only be based on their experiences of their clan. That does not make them "more correct" than other Dalish, such as Minaeve's when it comes their experiences of their own clan.
So basically, there was something in the game you didn't like because it messed with your image of the Dalish so you decide to call it a reta con so you can act like isn't relevant. *slow clap*
You do realize that Solas himself notes that the Dalish are very scattered and all seem to be forming their own little subcultures right? So no Viv can't make a generalization about the Dalish but neither can the Inquisitor 'correct' a generalization about a people they can't be terribly familiar with outside of their own clan.
I've never said that though.
My issues lie with the Inquisitor's behavior in that scenario and how it merely serves to prop her up.
No, you did not, but that's why I got into the conversation (the you I used there was general "you"). Both Inquisitor and Vivienne arrive at that point in a rather weird manner.
Because the point was that all of them don't behave this way?
So what if not all clans kick out the extra mages? Some still do. How is it that not everyone doing it changes the fact that it does happen?
I disliked it because it was basiclly a retacon, and not a good one at that since it basically went against the lore in previous games.
Prior to Inquisition, it was done because magic was dying out among the Dalish.
So Bioware "changed" things. They did that with Anders in DA2. They did that with Alistairs' backstory with Fiona. They are continuously expanding their lore. They are the authors of it, and they have the right to do so. If the new and "conflicting" stuff cannot be accepted, then I don't see how you can continue with these games. I can only imagine this is more likely to happen.
I also don't see how you can argue one thing is true over another when ignoring certain now-established cannon facts that you don't like because it "conflicts" with previous explanations.
No, you did not, but that's why I got into the conversation (the you I used there was general "you"). Both Inquisitor and Vivienne arrive at that point in a rather weird manner.
Ah true enough.
Manufactured drama. What can you do.
Retour en haut