342 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Artifice]

This thread seemed relatively peaceful only a little while ago. Now, less so.

 

If I helped contribute to any tension by talking about xenophobia, I apologize. To put things in perspective, I was talking about the stereotype of the Dalish more than I was talking about the reality. 

 

For the rest, I think I get the frustration involved in the discussion. When it feels like people interpreting a character as having a default mindset, even when they don't it might seem like they're imposing their perceptions on the character unnecessarily. But even if that's the case, I think it's best to let people have their perspective without being too concerned if it's very different from yours. It's usually more relaxing. 

[Felya87]

Exactly! It's a regular lovefest for the Dalish. Oh, you're an elf? Let's flirt! You don't believe in the Maker? Well, it doesn't make any difference! We can all have a good laugh together about how elves kill babies. Sure, it's nice to instantly have a bunch of human friends. Maybe they treat all their slaves that way until they don't need them anymore. It's kind of like being an elf Dovahkiin in Skyrim. I'm just glad I wasn't forced to play as a human - I'll take what I can get. 

 

The only human character I have ever played in the DA franchise is Hawke. That say a lot about what is my preference in characters (all non-human). I'm already happy with having the races back, even with all the restriction due to time and resources (to be stuff added last it was done well). Surealy I hope next game it will be better, and that BioWare will not decide to go back to the usual-as-in-every-game-around-even-in-a-fantasy-setting human, and improve even more the races.

 

While playng an Elf, I always had a bad sensation at the way Josephine "put aside" the inquisitor desire to not be seen as the Herald. It felt so...condescending on her part. Like a "yeah, yeah...whatever you say, no one will listen anyway. Even less me, since is not what is in my interests."

I always felt very little respect for my Elf culture. And I would have liked more agressive replies to use with Sera and Vivienne.

[Piffle]

 

I always felt very little respect for my Elf culture. And I would have liked more agressive replies to use with Sera and Vivienne.

 

I felt that too and wanted more snarky replies as well. However, being a minority in a politically volatile situation, I think it's better that the inquisitor is more often diplomatic than not.

 

I can't imagine Lavellan would have made it far infiltrating such shemlen dominant organizations (Conclave, and then the Inquisition) if she wasn't able to brush aside a lot of ignorant comments and people.

[phyreblade74]

When you wrote "the story presents the Dalish as singularly anti-human straight off and I just couldn't make sense of those characters suddenly becoming unbiased and openly accepting of non-Dalish after that introduction" it looked as through you were doing precisely that. 

 

LOL, you're implying that if I don't LIKE a particular character or culture or group as the story presents it that must mean I think the story's not done well and proper.  Why would you think that?  Good writing doesn't mean every character and/or event is going to be so popular and appealing to everyone who considers it, anyway.  I'd imagine David Gaider, who was the primary writer for the Dalish elf origin would be glad it evoked an emotional response of mine.  Not judge the nature of that response as "right" or "wrong".  Different people respond differently, and it's all good, I think.

[Bowie Hawkins]

LOL, you're implying that if I don't LIKE a particular character or culture or group as the story presents it that must mean I think the story's not done well and proper.  

 

No, I am outright stating that Origins presented Mahariel as someone who had no problem with humans as much as it did someone who was anti-human, and that everything you complain about is your doing, not David Gaider's.

[phyreblade74]

No, I am outright stating that Origins presented Mahariel as someone who had no problem with humans as much as it did someone who was anti-human, and that everything you complain about is your doing, not David Gaider's.

 

Actually, the story's written precisely so it can be taken EITHER WAY depending on the person "reading" it.  Else those options showing Mahariel as anti-human wouldn't have been included, too.  You're presuming to describe your own particular interpretation of the tale to be the only possible correct one, rather, and that is unnecessarily rude.

[YourFunnyUncle]

Did I read this argument right?

 

Bowie: "You can choose to be pro or anti-human!"

phyreblade: "No! You can interpret the story as pro or anti-human!"

 

Er... What?

[Sifr]

Did I read this argument right?

 

Bowie: "You can choose to be pro or anti-human!"

phyreblade: "No! You can interpret the story as pro or anti-human!"

 

Er... What?

 

I think what Phyreblade is saying that while Mahariel can be all moonbeams and rainbows when it comes to humans, they can also be an intolerant bigot with a chip on their shoulder. Either characterisation is possible and neither is any more correct than the other, but people seem to insist the former is more valid than the latter (because they picked it) and dismiss the other entirely, or that perhaps it's a bit of both? When surely, if we were meant to play a certain way only, pro-human, or anti-human, then why do we repeatedly get options that allow us to express either views?

 

After all, regardless of what options you picked, it can't be denied that Mahariel does start their Origin with arrows trained on a bunch of humans, who've committed no crime other than wandering too near their camp. Nor can we deny that they weren't trying to ambush them, since Tamlen was waiting for them there to cut them off, while Mahariel saunters in from the side, having clearly been ready to either flank or provide cover fire if needed.

[Mistic]

I felt that too and wanted more snarky replies as well. However, being a minority in a politically volatile situation, I think it's better that the inquisitor is more often diplomatic than not.

 

True. Let's be honest, until Haven was destroyed, every Inquisitor felt like an employee and a PR mascot.

 

On the one hand, the whole "Herald of Andraste" thing is managed by your superiors without your consent. "Will my answer change your reply to the Chantry?", cue Josephine's very-polite-but-clear: "no". On the other hand, hey, my Wardens would have killed to have that infrastructure at the beginning of their adventure. Soldiers, diplomats, spies, camps, resources, etc. Being part of an organization has its perks too, even if you aren't the leader (yet).

[YourFunnyUncle]

I think what Phyreblade is saying that while Mahariel can be all moonbeams and rainbows when it comes to humans, they can also be an intolerant bigot with a chip on their shoulder. Either characterisation is possible and neither is any more correct than the other, but people seem to insist the former is more valid than the latter (because they picked it) and dismiss the other entirely, or that perhaps it's a bit of both? When surely, if we were meant to play a certain way only, pro-human, or anti-human, then why do we repeatedly get options that allow us to express either views?

But that's what Bowie also said. You can be one as much as the other. It's your choice. 

 

Bowie is arguing that you don't have to be mean to humans, and Phyreblade is arguing that you don't have to be nice to humans. So basically they are agreeing.

[phyreblade74]

But that's what Bowie also said. You can be one as much as the other. It's your choice. 

 

Bowie is arguing that you don't have to be mean to humans, and Phyreblade is arguing that you don't have to be nice to humans. So basically they are agreeing.

 

The implication, however, is that I made the "wrong" choice.  Because I didn't like Mahariel, mind you.  What Bowie's saying, is that if only I'd chosen "correctly" I wouldn't have disliked Mahariel as much as I did.  But what I argued to begin with, is that I'd already interpreted the story in a particular way and how I felt was just that -- how I felt, shrug.  There's nothing incorrect in how I took the story, it's just as proper and correct as anyone else's.  That's all I'm saying.

[Bowie Hawkins]

But that's what Bowie also said. You can be one as much as the other. It's your choice. 

 

Bowie is arguing that you don't have to be mean to humans, and Phyreblade is arguing that you don't have to be nice to humans. So basically they are agreeing.

 

It's more like Phyreblade was arguing that Maharial was presented as "doggedly anti-human, head-in-the-past snotty and arrogant a Dalish", and I was arguing that it was Phyreblade ratherthan the game that decided she was like that.

[phyreblade74]

It's more like Phyreblade was arguing that Maharial was presented as "doggedly anti-human, head-in-the-past snotty and arrogant a Dalish", and I was arguing that it was Phyreblade ratherthan the game that decided she was like that.

 

Mahariel is presented -- by the game -- as a Dalish quite willing to deliberately stick an arrow in a Human's face in the very first scenes.  I interpreted the character accordingly, personally.  But that's me.  You want to see her so different?  That's great, too!  Enjoy YOUR game as you see fit.

[The Dank Warden]

Considering that the city elf start with a marriage and then he/she get raped....

[The Lone Shadow]

Considering that the city elf start with a marriage and then he/she get raped....

 

Attempted rape, technically, but yeah, compared to warden city elf Lavellan's situration is sunshine and rainbows.

[Sifr]

Mahariel is presented -- by the game -- as a Dalish quite willing to deliberately stick an arrow in a Human's face in the very first scenes.  I interpreted the character accordingly, personally.  But that's me.  You want to see her so different?  That's great, too!  Enjoy YOUR game as you see fit.

 

Exactly, regardless of the characterisation we chose, that was the starting point and it is pretty negative. Despite Duncan referring to the Dalish as "noble wanderers", he's narration makes it pretty clear that this is not the first time that we've encountered humans out in the forest;

 

"You spend your time hunting with your clan-mate Tamlen in the forests, and as is sometimes the case, your quarry is not just the local wildlife."

 

Mahariel isn't the only one to have this kinda deal, Brosca is the same way. Even if you play them as a dashing rogue who doesn't use violence, it's heavily implied that we have used violence before and been forced to do unsavoury things in the past, simply because we had no choice?

[YourFunnyUncle]

Exactly, regardless of the characterisation we chose, that was the starting point and it is pretty negative. Despite Duncan referring to the Dalish as "noble wanderers", he's narration makes it pretty clear that this is not the first time that we've encountered humans out in the forest;

 

"You spend your time hunting with your clan-mate Tamlen in the forests, and as is sometimes the case, your quarry is not just the local wildlife."

 

Mahariel isn't the only one to have this kinda deal, Brosca is the same way. Even if you play them as a dashing rogue who doesn't use violence, it's heavily implied that we have used violence before and been forced to do unsavoury things in the past, simply because we had no choice?

Well of course. They need to set up the reason why you might just randomly shoot some humans, otherwise there's be no choice to make; you'd only kill them if you were RPing a psycho. It creates a genuine dilemma: Do you kill them to ensure your clan's safety or do you let them go as they don't seem to have done anthing wrong? Either is a perfectly acceptable RP option.

[GGGenesis]

Well of course. They need to set up the reason why you might just randomly shoot some humans, otherwise there's be no choice to make; you'd only kill them if you were RPing a psycho. It creates a genuine dilemma: Do you kill them to ensure your clan's safety or do you let them go as they don't seem to have done anthing wrong? Either is a perfectly acceptable RP option.

 

True. Very true. I don't see the harm in Mahariel killing a few humans or having a disdain for them. Keep in mind, humans have for centuries hunted down and enslaved elves. If they were to kill humans it isn't out of xenophobia, but it is out of protecting their clan from being ravaged. If the Qunari enslaved them, then the Qunari will get the same treatment the humans do. Of course not all humans are the same which is why you have the choice to kill them without question or assess how non-threatening they are and let them go. The Dalish don't go out seeking to kill humans. 

 

This is going to rub some people the wrong way, but consider that the Dalish and the humans are at war. You step into the Dalish territory and expect to be nuked by flaming arrows because they expect human mercenaries to wipe them out or templars wanting to take their Keeper away.

[YourFunnyUncle]

True. Very true. I don't see the harm in Mahariel killing a few humans or having a disdain for them. Keep in mind, humans have for centuries hunted down and enslaved elves. If they were to kill humans it isn't out of xenophobia, but it is out of protecting their clan from being ravaged. If the Qunari enslaved them, then the Qunari will get the same treatment the humans do. Of course not all humans are the same which is why you have the choice to kill them without question or assess how non-threatening they are and let them go. The Dalish don't go out seeking to kill humans. 

 

This is going to rub some people the wrong way, but consider that the Dalish and the humans are at war. You step into the Dalish territory and expect to be nuked by flaming arrows because they expect human mercenaries to wipe them out or templars wanting to take their Keeper away.

But you don't know all of this it is your first playthrough of a DA game. The purpose of this scene is to let you begin understand that there is conflict and that the Dalish and humans are at best distrustful of one another.

[Serelir]

Am I not remembering this correctly - weren't those humans there to plunder the elven ruins, or the elves thought they were, because it was a common occurrence? If you lived in a place with no police force, wouldn't you be inclined to protect your cultural artifacts from bandits?

[YourFunnyUncle]

Am I not remembering this correctly - weren't those humans there to plunder the elven ruins, or the elves thought they were, because it was a common occurrence? If you lived in a place with no police force, wouldn't you be inclined to protect your cultural artifacts from bandits?

They say they found ruins but you didn't know that they existed. They give you an artefact they found which Tamlen thinks might be ancient Elven in origin. but you're not really certain of anything. You could argue that they inadvertently helped you find your people's heritage, depending on how you want to read the situation.

 

[Serelir]

I had forgotten just how hapless those humans were! 

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

This is going to rub some people the wrong way, but consider that the Dalish and the humans are at war. You step into the Dalish territory and expect to be nuked by flaming arrows because they expect human mercenaries to wipe them out or templars wanting to take their Keeper away.

The Dalish don't have territory, they pretty much trespass on any available land after losing the Dales

[Master Warder Z_]

The Dalish don't have territory, they pretty much trespass on any available land after losing the Dales

Hopefully Gaspard will fix that issue in Orlais

[Serelir]

Codex entry if Inquisitor is Dalish:

 

"we keep to the wild border lands, we raise halla and build aravels and present a moving target to the humans around us"

 

Codex entry if Inquisitor is not Dalish:

 

"These, I was informed later, were the Dalish, the wild elves who lurk in the wilderness on the fringes of settled lands"