807 réponses à ce sujet

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I like how the pro-Dlaish are quick to bash the Chantry for being anti-Dalish, but no mention of the Dalish making others convert to be accepted, or how quickly they were to brush under the rug Sharthan, since they never mention it.

At least the Chantry had his canticle, and only got removed because the Dalish invaded and acted all d***ish.

 

Now I wonder what would've happened to the humans had they won the war. They weren't elves, much less elvish enough. And considering they blamed the humans for the loss of their immortality...who knows.

 

Actually the Dalish do mention Shartan. Sarel brings him up during his storytelling in Origins.

[LOLandStuff]

But you'd think they'd honor the guy as well since he helped free them, than some gods they know nothing about.

When talking about him it's more like: And that guy too.

[Bowie Hawkins]

I like how the pro-Dlaish are quick to bash the Chantry for being anti-Dalish, but no mention of the Dalish making others convert to be accepted, or how quickly they were to brush under the rug Sharthan, since they never mention it.

 

The Dalish don't have the history of being the aggressor in religious warfare  the Chantry has, and the Dalish didn't actively suppress the written records the way the Chantry has done.

[Boost32]

The Dalish don't have the history of being the aggressor in religious warfare  the Chantry has, and the Dalish didn't actively suppress the written records the way the Chantry has done.

Ofc they have, they were the agressões when they invaded Orlais.

[Drasanil]

I like how the pro-Dlaish are quick to bash the Chantry for being anti-Dalish, but no mention of the Dalish making others convert to be accepted, or how quickly they were to brush under the rug Sharthan, since they never mention it.

At least the Chantry had his canticle, and only got removed because the Dalish invaded and acted all d***ish.

 

According to WoT2 the Chantry got the Canticles of Shartan when Divine Justinia had the elves' oral histories about him transcribed. So he was a folk hero/revered at some point in the Dales. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

There is more proof of human aggression against elves than of them being totally innocent of it, with things like the City elf origin in DAO being just one example. You can try to handwave that away if you feel you absolutely must, but that won't make it any less true.

The Alienages were a result of the Dales-Orlais War, not a cause. Before that war, they didn't exist. 

 

The Dales-Orlais War began when the Dales invaded Orlais, so the Dales were the aggressors. 

[Steelcan]

There is more proof of human aggression against elves than of them being totally innocent of it, with things like the City elf origin in DAO being just one example. You can try to handwave that away if you feel you absolutely must, but that won't make it any less true.

I'm just gonna go ahead and assume you haven't played DA:I

 

The Aleinages existed after the war between Orlais and the Dales, the war was started by the elven invasion following the events of Red Crossing and the subsequent sacking of half of Orlais.  This was not a human started war, the elves were the ones pouring over the border first.  They then had the misfortune to lose and get thrown back over the border then utterly eradicated.

 

The events prior to Red Crossing are incredibly hazy with the elves saying missionaries and templars violated their sovereignty by converting locals and human sources claim the elves launched border raids.  Given the revelations surrounding Red Crossing I put a whole lot more weight behind the human accusations than the elves

[Bowie Hawkins]

Ofc they have, they were the agressões when they invaded Orlais.

 

By your logic, Orlais had repeatedly invaded the Dales long before Red Crossing happened, both generally, and specifically by killing Siona's sister.

 

I'm just gonna go ahead and assume you haven't played DA:I

 

The Aleinages existed after the war between Orlais and the Dales, the war was started by the elven invasion following the events of Red Crossing and the subsequent sacking of half of Orlais.  This was not a human started war, the elves were the ones pouring over the border first.  They then had the misfortune to lose and get thrown back over the border then utterly eradicated.

 

The events prior to Red Crossing are incredibly hazy with the elves saying missionaries and templars violated their sovereignty by converting locals and human sources claim the elves launched border raids.  Given the revelations surrounding Red Crossing I put a whole lot more weight behind the human accusations than the elves

 

I've played Inquisition multiple times, but since you keep trying to make Red Crossing the very first incident that ever happened you keep giving me cause to doubt that you have. Especially since one of the revelations surrounding Red Crossing is the codex entry that you keep trying to only accept the part that you can make fit your views, while ignoring the parts about previous human aggression such as when the humans killed Siona's sister.

[Boost32]

By your logic, Orlais had repeatedly invaded the Dales long before Red Crossing happened, both generally, and specifically by killing Siona's sister.
 

 
I've played Inquisition multiple times, but since you keep trying to make Red Crossing the very first incident that ever happened you keep giving me cause to doubt that you have. Especially since one of the revelations surrounding Red Crossing is the codex entry that you keep trying to only accept the part that you can make fit your views, while ignoring the parts about previous human aggression such as when the humans killed Siona's sister.

Do you have any proof that she was killed by humans? Please show me.
And if thats the case, elves have killed humans before too.

[Steelcan]

 

I've played Inquisition multiple times, but since you keep trying to make Red Crossing the very first incident that ever happened you keep giving me cause to doubt that you have. Especially since one of the revelations surrounding Red Crossing is the codex entry that you keep trying to only accept the part that you can make fit your views, while ignoring the parts about previous human aggression such as when the humans killed Siona's sister.

Red Crossing is the only incident that we have significant details on, and its the last event before the elves marched into Orlais intent on burning it.

 

Siona's sister's death falls into the "border disputes" that are mentioned as happening before Red Crossing, but beyond that it is contextless, we don't the full story behind it, for all we know she deserved to be killed for whatever reason, there's as much reason to think that as she was an innocent victim of human aggression.

 

In the end we have to rely on the sources we have and the events that we know happen.  We know the elves invaded Orlais after years of border disputes that culminated in the elven attack on Red Crossing.  There is no denying this.  Everything else is built on speculation.  Given what we know its unlikely that the elves were the innocent party in the build up to the war.

[Bowie Hawkins]

Do you have any proof that she was killed by humans? Please show me.

 

I've done that multiple times already, and have repeatedly linked to the codex entry in question whereas you haven't managed to provide anything that actually backed up any of your claims.

 

Red Crossing is the only incident that we have significant details on, and its the last event before the elves marched into Orlais intent on burning it.

 

The humans killing Siona's sister was one of those significant details, no matter how you try to ignore that fact. 

 

And since you have both finally convinced me that you're not wasting any more of my time on I'll allow you enough time to read this before putting you on ignore so that you won't take time and attention away from people who are actually interested in discussing things.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

 

Do you have any proof that she was killed by humans? Please show me.
And if thats the case, elves have killed humans before too.

 

It's ridiculous to ask for proof only for the the thing that would make the humans the aggressors and accept everything else in any other codex entries. 

 

Red Crossing is the only incident that we have significant details on, and its the last event before the elves marched into Orlais intent on burning it.

 

Siona's sister's death falls into the "border disputes" that are mentioned as happening before Red Crossing, but beyond that it is contextless, we don't the full story behind it, for all we know she deserved to be killed for whatever reason, there's as much reason to think that as she was an innocent victim of human aggression.

 

In the end we have to rely on the sources we have and the events that we know happen.  We know the elves invaded Orlais after years of border disputes that culminated in the elven attack on Red Crossing.  There is no denying this.  Everything else is built on speculation.  Given what we know its unlikely that the elves were the innocent party in the build up to the war.

 

Suggesting that Siona deserved to be killed is like suggesting the people of Red Crossing must have deserved the elven raid on them (back when we were operating on the information we had before DAI) 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

But you'd think they'd honor the guy as well since he helped free them, than some gods they know nothing about.

When talking about him it's more like: And that guy too.

 

That's certainly more than the standard Chantry line about him, which is along the lines of: "There was never any Shartan! The elves didn't help Andraste! YOU LIE!"

 

WoT Volume 2 even has a hilarious edited "Chantry approved" version of a Codex entry talking about him. The original entry about Glandivalis is this:

 

"It is heresy today to speak of Shartan, an elven slave that rose up against his Tevinter masters to help Andraste's barbarian invasion. It seems most people would prefer to believe that Andraste crossed the Waking Sea with little more than a basket of flowers and songs of peace and harmony. The truth is that she came with a horde of warriors at her back, and that without a rebellion occurring behind the enemy lines it's very possible that the holy invasion could have been foiled. Shartan was a slave who became a fabled warrior and later a devotee of Andraste herself, and we know this because the  Canticle of Shartan spoke of their meeting on the Valarian Fields. Andraste gave him a mystic blade that he called Glandivalis (translation unknown) and he even fought at Maferath's side. But now the Canticle is one of the Dissonant Verses, and has been ever since the Exalted March of the Dales. It seems we don't wish to speak of elven heroes or the role they played in Andraste's war any more than we wish to speak of barbarians or the bloody death toll that accompanied the war. With each passing age, heroes like Shartan become more of a fable, but some of us will always know the truth."

 

But the Chantry redacted enough words to make it this:

 

"It is heresy today to speak of Shartan, an elven slave that rose up against his Tevinter masters to help Andraste's barbarian invasion. Andraste crossed the Waking Sea with a horde of warriors at her back, and a rebellion occurring behind the enemy lines. Shartan was a slave who became a devotee of Andraste herself. Andraste gave him a mystic blade that he called Glandivalis (translation unknown) and he fought at Maferath's side. The Canticle is one of the Dissonant Verses, and has been ever since the Exalted March of the Dales. Don't speak of elven heroes or the role they played in Andraste's war."

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Dalish don't have the history of being the aggressor in religious warfare  the Chantry has, and the Dalish didn't actively suppress the written records the way the Chantry has done.

Neither does the Chantry at this point in time. The Chantry had spread through the Divine Age by actually spearheading the efforts of combating the Blight (something the Dalish notably denied to even participate in), and that is how they gained influence across the world in the early ages. The Chantry never really expanded through violent means. Sure, they used Exalted marches to regain lost territory (or attempt to), but they never used an Exalted March on a heaten people in an effort to "bring the light to them", except that one time, when their very existance depended on it.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

He may not have intended to attack the Dales to spread the Chant, but Drakon did unify both the Orlesian city-states into an empire and the local Andrastian cults into the Chantry by the sword.

[Steelcan]

It's ridiculous to ask for proof only for the the thing that would make the humans the aggressors and accept everything else in any other codex entries. 
 


 
Suggesting that Siona deserved to be killed is like suggesting the people of Red Crossing must have deserved the elven raid on them (back when we were operating on the information we had before DAI)

which is why I'm saying we can't say for certain what happened there

[EmperorSahlertz]

He may not have intended to attack the Dales to spread the Chant, but Drakon did unify both the Orlesian city-states into an empire and the local Andrastian cults into the Chantry by the sword.

Last I checked Drakon formalized the Chantry AFTER he had conquered Orlais. Sure, he used faith to unify his people, but how again is that the fault of the Chantry?

[Bowie Hawkins]

Neither does the Chantry at this point in time. The Chantry had spread through the Divine Age by actually spearheading the efforts of combating the Blight (something the Dalish notably denied to even participate in), and that is how they gained influence across the world in the early ages. The Chantry never really expanded through violent means. Sure, they used Exalted marches to regain lost territory (or attempt to), but they never used an Exalted March on a heaten people in an effort to "bring the light to them", except that one time, when their very existance depended on it.

 

Since nobody ever used time magic to go back and prevent that Exalted March from happening, that means it is therefore still part of the Chantry's history. Which means they do still have a history of having done this, at this time or any other after it happened.

 

You can say that it's been awhile since the last time they did it, but all that means is that it's been awhile since the last time they did it.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Last I checked Drakon formalized the Chantry AFTER he had conquered Orlais. Sure, he used faith to unify his people, but how again is that the fault of the Chantry?

 

Drakon wiped out or oppressed any of the Andrastian Cults weren't part of the one that he eventually formalized into the Chantry. Prior to his holy wars, there wasn't any unity to the different versions of the Cult of the Maker outside of the Imperium. The most of the other cults were stamped out. It's mentioned in the codex entries for the Daughters of Song and the Wrath of Heaven. 

 

The point is Emperor Drakon was neither the one dimensional hero or imperialist that people often like to talk about him here as.

[EmperorSahlertz]

 

Since nobody ever used time magic to go back and prevent that Exalted March from happening, that means it is therefore still part of the Chantry's history. Which means they do still have a history of having done this, at this time or any other after it happened.

 

You can say that it's been awhile since the last time they did it, but all that means is that it's been awhile since the last time they did it.

AT THAT TIME, the Chantry had no such history. Historical analysis is not exactly your strong suit, is it?

 

Drakon wiped out or oppressed any of the Andrastian Cults weren't part of the one that he eventually formalized into the Chantry. Prior to his holy wars, there wasn't any unity to the different versions of the Cult of the Maker outside of the Imperium. The most of the other cults were stamped out. It's mentioned in the codex entries for the Daughters of Song and the Wrath of Heaven. 

 

The point is Emperor Drakon was neither the one dimensional hero or imperialist that people often like to talk about him here as.

And this has to do with the Chantry's previous history, what? The Chantry was not yet a thing, so you cannot hold the Chantry accountable for the way Drakon (expertly I might add) used faith to unite his people. The Chantry, by the time of the war with the Dales, DID NOT have a history of violence. On the contrary, it had a history of uniting people and dfending them against the onslaught of darkness.

[Bowie Hawkins]

AT THAT TIME, the Chantry had no such history. Historical analysis is not exactly your strong suit, is it?

 

Because you originally wrote "at this point in time", it looked like you were talking about the present. But even if you were talking about the point in time where Red Crossing happened, you were mistaken:

 

http://dragonage.wik...ath_of_Elandrin

 

"Too often had we fought with humans along our borders until the beginning was lost to memory. Rumors of an abduction stirred. As always, their Chantry was swift to spread lies. In haste and anger, they killed Siona's sister for wandering too near the hunters' path."

[EmperorSahlertz]

 

Because you originally wrote "at this point in time", it looked like you were talking about the present. But even if you were talking about the point in time where Red Crossing happened, you were mistaken:

 

"Too often had we fought with humans along our borders until the beginning was lost to memory. Rumors of an abduction stirred. As always, their Chantry was swift to spread lies. In haste and anger, they killed Siona's sister for wandering too near the hunters' path."

Yes, as in this specific point in time, the start of the Glory Age. And WHAT EXACTLY does Orlesian and Dalish border skirmishes have to do with the Chantry's history of violence? Honestly, what the flying ****?

[Boost32]

I've done that multiple times already, and have repeatedly linked to the codex entry in question whereas you haven't managed to provide anything that actually backed up any of your claims.

 

 

The humans killing Siona's sister was one of those significant details, no matter how you try to ignore that fact. 

 

And since you have both finally convinced me that you're not wasting any more of my time on I'll allow you enough time to read this before putting you on ignore so that you won't take time and attention away from people who are actually interested in discussing things.

You have not, the elves werent witness to Siona's sister murder and we dont even know if she was killed in orlesian or dalish territory, you just want to excuse the elves.

They were the agressors, they started the war and they lost, thats a fact.

[Bowie Hawkins]

Yes, as in this specific point in time, the start of the Glory Age. And WHAT EXACTLY does Orlesian and Dalish border skirmishes have to do with the Chantry's history of violence? Honestly, what the flying ****?

 

What part of "As always, the Chantry was swift to spread lies" did you not read? Although in all fairness after doing a more thorough review of the timeline, before Red Crossing the Chantry appears to have primarily confined itself to spreading anti-Dalish propaganda.

 

But the thing is, this particular branch of this thread started out with me talking about the particular point in time that is the present day as of Inquisition, so saying that the Chantry didn't have a history of being the aggressor in religious warfare before they were the aggressor in religious warfare in the past is totally irrelevant to discussions about the present.

[EmperorSahlertz]

What part of "As always, the Chantry was swift to spread lies" did you not read? Although in all fairness after doing a more thorough review of the timeline, before Red Crossing the Chantry appears to have primarily confined itself to spreading anti-Dalish propaganda.

 

But the thing is, this particular branch of this thread started out with me talking about the particular point in time that is the present day as of Inquisition, so saying that the Chantry didn't have a history of being the aggressor in religious warfare before they were the aggressor in religious warfare in the past is totally irrelevant to discussions about the present.

So you ARE having a hard time with historical analysis. Did you even bother to try an apply source criticism? You see, this is a source originating from a group of people EXTREMELY hostile to the Chantry, so of course they would blame the Chantry, they would probably even lie about it themselves. The Chantry prior to Red Crossing confined itself to PRIMARILY exactly the same as they have always been doing: Ministering their faith to the masses, and other churchly matters. But yes, there had been hostility between the Chantry/Orlais and the Dales prior to the incident at Red Crossing. So? How does that constitute a history of violence for the Chantry? NONE of what you've said so far, even remotely suggest that the Chantry uses violence as their main tool of "negotiation". Actually everything points towards the Chantry using violence as an absolute last resort.

 

This entire branch of the thread started with Dalish-apologists' feeble attempt at whitewashing the Dalish for all the **** they've done.