169 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

That was the opening move of the war; the spark to ignite the war was the murder of Siona's sister.

 

The death of the sister wasn't a move of the war at all. Siona doesn't even know who killed her sister, let alone their personal reasons why why- for all we know, it could have been perceived as self-defense.

 

There's certainly no indication that there was any institutional or organizational involvement in her death, let alone enough of one to justify the organizational response by the Emerald Knights.
 

 

But it really doesn't matter. Humans have committed far more injustices to elves than the reverse.

 

 

That would be what doesn't matter. Responsibility for specific situations doesn't depend on aggregate conflicts by other people.

 

The defeated are not blameless by virtue of being weaker.

 

 

A more relevant question would be 'which humans' have committed far more injustice than which elves. Certainly Siona can't claim to be administering justice for her sister's death in her adventure in Red Crossing. It's neither her basis for being there, or the basis for her selection of targets.

[Dean_the_Young]

See the contrasting reactions of those you give the scroll to.

 

 

C

 

 

 

****** yes.

 

 

What injustice have the humans inflicted on the elves that surpasses what the Evunaris and Solas inflicted?

 

Tevinter conquered, but only after the Evunaris enslaved and Solas burned the world.
 

 

Why does it matter?

 

 

Because morality rests on intent as well as result. If two sides would do equivalent things to eachother if they won, then losing doesn't make one more moral simply because they're unable to demonstrate their lack of character.

 

Reaching back into Siona's- you've expressed solidarity with Siona that she was just reacting because of what someone did to her sister. You've called Siona's sister's death the start, because it put bad feelings into play. But you don't actually know if that's the start- because you don't actually know why the people who killed her actually did it. You're assuming it's unjustified- but it could be the same justification as you grant Siona.

 

If you give personal feelings weight for absolving them (as you do with justifying Siona), then it would also matter for condemtning them, and so what the loser would have done if the situation was reversed also matters.

 

 

 

If justice is to be sought, it's justice for the elves.

 

 

 

If it's justice for just the elves, it's not justice. Just revaunchism.

[Iakus]

Since when?

 

Setting aside that the Chantry has a better record of writing down and sharing history for scholarly debate vis-a-vis Dalish oral history, the Chantry version of the events was far more honest than the Dalish handling of it.
 

 

You can't metagame (actually, I take that back, you flagrantly do), but Dalish history has consistently been just as if not more self-serving and selective as the Chantry. The chantry keeps records of its past, enough so that there's sustained scholarly debate on re-interpretations and restoring the truth. The Dalish simply don't know their past because they've discarded the inconvenient bits.

 

 

I might buy an argument if you thought the Dalish were more likely to print the history and share the texts around... but that'd have to overcome how the Dalish actually keep their history.

 

At least the Chantry actually knows what the Cantical of Shartan was and has it written down somewhere, even if it's out of favor. Where's the Dalish printing presses to spread this?

Heck the Dalish clans have become so isolated, there isn't really a homogeneous Dalish culture anymore.  The odds of the truth about Red Crossing spreading to any degree among the Dalish as a whole is pretty remote.

[Iakus]

I'm sorry but you seem to have missed out the first part of the story.   Elandrin, the Emerald Knight, fell in love with a human girl from Red Crossing.   He wanted her to come away with him or at least marry him.  She confided in one of the Chantry priestesses and she spread rumours of an abduction (the priestess presumably suggested that Elandrin was going to kidnap the girl and have his wicked way with her).   Hunters were sent out to keep watch for him.    Siona's sister was wandering in the woods near the village (which one must assume was likewise very near the border between the two realms) and crossed the path of the hunters who killed her.   Elandrin (probably on his way for a meeting with his love) found her body and took it back to the others.   After mourning her death with his companions, he returned to see his love and she explained to him that the Chantry sister would only believe his sincerity if he swore himself to the Maker.    He was going to agree to this but events conspired against them and tragedy ensued.   

 

Can you please explain to me how the humans weren't at least partly to blame for what occurred, first in spreading rumours about the intentions of the "uncivilised elf", second in having hunters try and ambush Elandrin , thirdly in killing Sonia' sister and later for murdering Elandrin and throwing his body in the river.

My impression was the abduction rumors were totally unrelated.  Just another border skirmish in a long, long line of skirmishes.  Why would the priest believe warn of a possible kidnapping, but then give her blessing if said kidnapper converted to the Maker?

[The Baconer]

I doubt either group will use it to do anything remotely constructive or useful. If it were possible to just file it away or toss it in the bin, that would be my preference. As it is, flip a coin. 

[Ashagar]

For a organization with ties everywhere you'd think the inquisition would be able independently publish it and spread it far and wide before either group could try shut it down or put out their own version of the truth.

[Iakus]

For a organization with ties everywhere you'd think the inquisition would be able independently publish it and spread it far and wide before either group could try shut it down or put out their own version of the truth.

I'd get Varric on that 

[Master Warder Z_]

For a organization with ties everywhere you'd think the inquisition would be able independently publish it and spread it far and wide before either group could try shut it down or put out their own version of the truth.

That'd be going against Bioware's set practice of not giving the player agency.

[dragonflight288]

I'm prefacing this with - never having given it to the Chantry - that I have no idea what they actually say or do. But I can't see the human fault. 

 

Orlais may well be incredibly culpable for the war - we have no idea - but there's no "human fault" in the scenario here. We have a extraterritorial and unsanctioned incursion by an armed band of the Dales most elite troops. That's - by itself - a total act of war. The villagers attacking them is not their fault, any more than it would be the fault of any local group in resisting - with deadly force - what looks to be a military incursion into their sovereign territory. 

 

That doesn't mean the incident was the flashpoint for the war, that Orlais didn't invade afterwards on flimsy justification, or that Orlais - as a nation - was a victim at all in the entire war. It just means that - for the limited purpose of Red Crossing - the fault lies entirely with the small band of zealous militants who ignored their own laws and the laws of a foreign nation to exact extrajudicial vengeance on their own deserter, and massacred an entire town in the process. 

 

The elf who fired that first shot and killed the human lover, well her sister was murdered first by humans for wandering too close to their hunters paths, as it says. 

 

So she was understandably distraught. She made a mistake, and even realized the gravity of it when she saw the human woman who was running at them was not armed. The townsfolk were right to be upset about that, but the elves were not wrong to defend themselves either for the mistake of one of their number. Had they not, they would have been killed by justifiably angry townsfolk. 

 

The elven lover did nothing and was murdered by the humans simply because he was there. He may have been trying to defect to be with his lover, which meant he was a very real danger to the elves, and a traitor, so they in turn had a right to track him down, which they did to find the truth and ended up with a mess. 

 

So we have a squad of well-trained and well-armed elven knights whom are tracking down a possible traitor, and one of their number had a close relative murdered by humans recently, see a human in the shadows rushing at them. The town and peasants retaliate when they hear her cry out in pain. Should the elves have simply let the humans kill them? Sitting there doing nothing didn't stop the humans from killing the elven lover. 

 

So they defend themselves and flee back to the Dales leaving a trail of dead behind them from a perceived attack, which was mistaken for another attack, which was also likely to happen as they were tracking a potential traitor. 

 

Both sides have fault, and I can't reasonably assign full blame to either party.

 

It was just a bad situation overall, magnified by racial tension and border skirmishes that have been happening. 

[dragonflight288]

Since when?

 

Setting aside that the Chantry has a better record of writing down and sharing history for scholarly debate vis-a-vis Dalish oral history, the Chantry version of the events was far more honest than the Dalish handling of it.
 

 

You can't metagame (actually, I take that back, you flagrantly do), but Dalish history has consistently been just as if not more self-serving and selective as the Chantry. The chantry keeps records of its past, enough so that there's sustained scholarly debate on re-interpretations and restoring the truth. The Dalish simply don't know their past because they've discarded the inconvenient bits.

 

 

I might buy an argument if you thought the Dalish were more likely to print the history and share the texts around... but that'd have to overcome how the Dalish actually keep their history.

 

At least the Chantry actually knows what the Cantical of Shartan was and has it written down somewhere, even if it's out of favor. Where's the Dalish printing presses to spread this?

 

The Chantry also has a stronger history of altering the written history, or even their own scripture to fit their preferred narrative. The proof lies with the Dissonent Verses.

 

The most I ca say about the Dalish is that they misremember it and get most of it wrong. 

 

EDIT: As for the Chantry knowing of the Canticle of Shartan, yes, they do, but they don't preach it. In Haven in the beginning of Inquisition, there is an elf asking a sister about a canticle written by an elf and she adamantly says there never was one. And in Awakening in the quest board to find the Canticle of Maferath, it outright says studying the Dissonant Verses is heresy and strongly discouraged. 

Modifié par dragonflight288, 30 janvier 2016 - 03:44 .

[dragonflight288]

Anyway, I went to the Dragon Age Wikia to look up what it says when given to the Chantry word for word. 

 

Now, it's not factually incorrect in any way, but it does add a slant that is misleading. 

 

What we find in the tomb outright tells us he was not really converting, he just was going through the motions, and the elves did not maliciously murder his lover in retaliation, it was a tragic mistake based on the false notion they were under attack as all they saw was someone running at them in the dark. To add on that it is an example of prejudice and violence that the Chantry stands against is pure propaganda as it outright ignores the murder of Siona's sister.

 

Factually correct, but white-washed and kind of omitted.

 

Academic Notes: Notes by a scholar at the University of Orlais:

The source is a recent donation, recovered from a ruin in theEmerald Graves. Sister Andrea vouches for its authenticity.

The document outlines elven involvement in the Exalted March of the Dales. Of note is one of the elves—Elandrin—converting to Andrastianism and the hostility this ignited among his peers, as evidenced by the murder of his lover. An illustration of the prejudice and violence to which the Chantry stood in opposition at the time.

Could be interesting. Perhaps publishable? Must investigate.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Chantry also has a stronger history of altering the written history, or even their own scripture to fit their preferred narrative. The proof lies with the Dissonent Verses.

 

The dissonent verses still exist, though, and the proof is in that the Cantical of Shartan can be restored to the canon.

 

The Chantry changed it's doctrine, which is certainly condemnable, but it hasn't engaged in 1984-esque levels of rewriting history and destroying all evidence to the contrary. People not only know of the Dissonent Verses, but scholars are able to have informed discussions not only of them, but of their historical context.

 

 

 

 

The most I ca say about the Dalish is that they misremember it and get most of it wrong. 

 

 

You could also say that they've consistently forgotten the less flattering points in order to feed their narrative. Case in point- the very Dalish expressing regret when confronted with proof also attempts to equivocate the parties in the incident.

 

How long do you expect this to last?
 

 

EDIT: As for the Chantry knowing of the Canticle of Shartan, yes, they do, but they don't preach it. In Haven in the beginning of Inquisition, there is an elf asking a sister about a canticle written by an elf and she adamantly says there never was one. And in Awakening in the quest board to find the Canticle of Maferath, it outright says studying the Dissonant Verses is heresy and strongly discouraged. 

 

 

 

Who cares if they preach it? The point is that it exists, and is preserved, and can be analyzed as a subject of scholarly debate and replicated and spread.

 

The Dalish don't do that. The Dalish have no equivalent to the Canticle of Shartan because they've not only forgotten such things, but don't keep records that could remind their future generations and allow them to change their minds.

[Dean_the_Young]

Anyway, I went to the Dragon Age Wikia to look up what it says when given to the Chantry word for word. 

 

Now, it's not factually incorrect in any way, but it does add a slant that is misleading. 

 

What we find in the tomb outright tells us he was not really converting, he just was going through the motions, and the elves did not maliciously murder his lover in retaliation, it was a tragic mistake based on the false notion they were under attack as all they saw was someone running at them in the dark. To add on that it is an example of prejudice and violence that the Chantry stands against is pure propaganda as it outright ignores the murder of Siona's sister.

 

Factually correct, but white-washed and kind of omitted.

 

Academic Notes: Notes by a scholar at the University of Orlais:

The source is a recent donation, recovered from a ruin in theEmerald Graves. Sister Andrea vouches for its authenticity.

The document outlines elven involvement in the Exalted March of the Dales. Of note is one of the elves—Elandrin—converting to Andrastianism and the hostility this ignited among his peers, as evidenced by the murder of his lover. An illustration of the prejudice and violence to which the Chantry stood in opposition at the time.

Could be interesting. Perhaps publishable? Must investigate.

 

You know what's also omitted? By you?

 

The fact that the scholar is trying publish it for public consideration.

 

 

If they're publishing the source material, the Chantry isn't hiding it in a vault somewhere and claiming monopoly on interpretation.

 

Yes, the scholar has a bias in interpretation- but this does not prevent anyone else from reading the source material and coming to their own conclusion. The Dalish can read the transcript and come to their conclusion. The Dwarves could read and come to their own conclusion. Future, or other, humans could read it and come to concluion.

 

This isn't rewriting history. No one is saying 'hey, let's change what's in there to make it even worse.'  And it's the opposite of burying it.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Chantry scholar that you give it to basically says "Aha! I knew the elves were hypocrites!" so they probably would try to publish the information since that's the message they took from it.

[Dean_the_Young]

The elf who fired that first shot and killed the human lover, well her sister was murdered first by humans for wandering too close to their hunters paths, as it says.

 

Was she first? Or was she simply the first that the record recounts, ignorring centuries of tensions?

 

 

 

 

So she was understandably distraught. She made a mistake, and even realized the gravity of it when she saw the human woman who was running at them was not armed. The townsfolk were right to be upset about that, but the elves were not wrong to defend themselves either for the mistake of one of their number. Had they not, they would have been killed by justifiably angry townsfolk. 

 

 

Actually, they were in the wrong to defend themselves with lethal force- because they had no right to be there in the first place.

 

Self-defense lies with the victims of aggression, not the aggressors themselves.

 

 

 

 

The elven lover did nothing and was murdered by the humans simply because he was there. He may have been trying to defect to be with his lover, which meant he was a very real danger to the elves, and a traitor, so they in turn had a right to track him down, which they did to find the truth and ended up with a mess. 

 

 

It means no such thing, on nearly every point.

 

No plausible 'danger' was ever established, no indication was ever made that he was turning over state secrets or joining the Orlesian state in any way, and defection does not allow you jurisdiction into other soverign territories.

 

Nore did they do it to find 'the truth.' The truth was irrelevant- they simply weren't going to let him go.

 

 

So we have a squad of well-trained and well-armed elven knights whom are tracking down a possible traitor, and one of their number had a close relative murdered by humans recently, see a human in the shadows rushing at them. The town and peasants retaliate when they hear her cry out in pain. Should the elves have simply let the humans kill them? Sitting there doing nothing didn't stop the humans from killing the elven lover. 

 

 

Claiming they had to kill the humans or else be murdered is a false dilemma, in the sense that it ignores the fault of why the humans are trying to kill them in the first place.

 

It's a situation of compounding crimes. When a crisis escalates as a result of a crime, the consequences are the fault of the initiator. Hence why a death in the context of armed robbery is generally considered pre-meditated homicide of some sort- because it was a forseeable consequence even if it was unintended.

 

So, yes. In any either-or choice between the lives of murderers or the lives of innocents attack, the murderers 'should' die instead of committing more murder.

 

There are very few exceptions when self-defense is a valid justification for an attacking force, and these contexts (namely- the laws of war) do not apply in this context.

 

 

 

So they defend themselves and flee back to the Dales leaving a trail of dead behind them from a perceived attack, which was mistaken for another attack, which was also likely to happen as they were tracking a potential traitor. 

 

Both sides have fault, and I can't reasonably assign full blame to either party.

 

And yet, no point you've raised lays with villagers, and every point is the fault of the elves. Not even the death of the sister can be blamed on the village, or be called responsible for the subsequent actions.

 

The elves are to blame for putting themselves into a position of having to defend themselves from a counter-attack, they are to blame for a perceived attack (perceived as such because it was an attack), and they are to blame for pursuing a potential traitor into a neighboring country.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Chantry scholar that you give it to basically says "Aha! I knew the elves were hypocrites!" so they probably would try to publish the information since that's the message they took from it.

 

I'm trying to remember- and correct me if I'm wrong, but-

 

Do the Dalish actually public the book?

 

 

I recall the apology Halla. And I remember some contrition. But I don't remember the Dalish Keeper actually sharing the epitath, as oppossed to the message he took from it.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I don't know the Dalish are even capable of strictly "publishing" anything, but since the Halla is intended to be an offering of goodwill to the people of Red Crossing on the basis of the events in that story, I think it's intended to be public knowledge. 

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't know the Dalish are even capable of strictly "publishing" anything, but since the Halla is intended to be an offering of goodwill to the people of Red Crossing on the basis of the events in that story, I think it's intended to be public knowledge. 

 

Not the question- and missing the point.

 

What, exactly, is intended to be public knowledge? The actual sequence of the events? Or the moral of the story, as told by the Dalish?

 

The Dalish moral of the story is 'humans share blame.' But this is a highly disputable moral- it could even be called victim blaming. The Keeper's goodwill could be contested on the accuracy of the truth if the truth was shared and spread in the form of, say, verifiable published source material.

 

If it's not, however, then it's once again a game of telephone based on what that Keeper says- and oral histories are highly suceptible to bias in ways that reprinting source material with biased commentary is not.

 

 

Which do you think is going to spread from the Dalish- an accurate and unvarnished recitation of the events as recounted by the Dales, or an ever more flexible version of 'we did attack Red Crossing, but the humans are responsible for that too'?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I really don't have the energy, patience or desire to go through the same endless series of repeated arguments back and forth about what the moral of that story should be.

 

Suffice to say that the Dalish believe the moral of the story is that both sides are the blame for the conflict and the Chantry evidently does not. I don't think either side has any intention to hide the truth or deceive the rest of the world. If people on BSN disagree about the message of the story, then it's not surprising characters in universe would as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

I really don't have the energy, patience or desire to go through the same endless series of repeated arguments back and forth about what the moral of that story should be.

 

Suffice to say that the Dalish believe the moral of the story is that both sides are the blame for the conflict and the Chantry evidently does not. I don't think either side has any intention to hide the truth or deceive the rest of the world. If people on BSN disagree about the message of the story, then it's not surprising characters in universe would as well.

 

If the Dalish moral of the story is that both sides are at fault, then that is their perceived truth. Of course they're not going to hide that. They'll tell everyone- hey, we did it, but the humans were at fault to, so it doesn't actually matter that much.

 

 

The question is both whether and how the Dalish will share the source material- the 'truth'- along with their moral in a way that allows others to fairly question their choice of a moral.

 

The Chantry publishing it along with a biased narrative doesn't keep people from reading the source material and coming to their own conclusion. But Dalish telling the abridged tale (as oral histories always are) doesn't. That could only happen if the Dalish published the tale- but I don't recall any transcripts being sent out. Only a hala and the tale which the Dalish in question wanted to tell.

[Iakus]

I'm trying to remember- and correct me if I'm wrong, but-

 

Do the Dalish actually public the book?

 

 

I recall the apology Halla. And I remember some contrition. But I don't remember the Dalish Keeper actually sharing the epitath, as oppossed to the message he took from it.

Nope.  They just give the people of Red Crossing a halla.

 

And if you let Leliana handle the handover, the people there have no clue what it's all about, and think they're holding an animal sacred to the Dalish hostage.

[dragonflight288]

You know what's also omitted? By you?

 

The fact that the scholar is trying publish it for public consideration.

 

 

If they're publishing the source material, the Chantry isn't hiding it in a vault somewhere and claiming monopoly on interpretation.

 

Yes, the scholar has a bias in interpretation- but this does not prevent anyone else from reading the source material and coming to their own conclusion. The Dalish can read the transcript and come to their conclusion. The Dwarves could read and come to their own conclusion. Future, or other, humans could read it and come to concluion.

 

This isn't rewriting history. No one is saying 'hey, let's change what's in there to make it even worse.'  And it's the opposite of burying it.

***
 

 

The Chantry changed it's doctrine, which is certainly condemnable, but it hasn't engaged in 1984-esque levels of rewriting history and destroying all evidence to the contrary. People not only know of the Dissonent Verses, but scholars are able to have informed discussions not only of them, but of their historical context.

 

Again, Awakening, and picking up the quest for seeking the Canticle of Maferath. 

 

This random scholar in Awakening wants the Warden track down missing parts of the Dissonent Verse of the Canticle of Maferath, as it had been purposefully removed, and the Merchant Quest Board outright says simply studying the Dissonent Verses is considered Heresy by the Chantry. 

 

It's not a matter of simply having them. It's also an attempt to remove their existence. Which is also shown, again, by the chantry priestess telling the elf in Haven that there never was a canticle written by an elf. 

 

Now, if this chantry scholar decided to publish the account in its entirety as written by the elves, then that would be awesome. If they decide to publish the Chantry's version of it, spread it far and wide without including the proper context of the situation, well, it wouldn't be factually incorrect as I'e already said, but it would remove the true motivation of the elves killing the human lover and the true motivation of the elven defector.

 

As for the Dissonent Verses being restored, yes, but Shartan's canticle is ONLY restored under Leliana as she tries to remove all racism and bigotry in the Chantry, something many on the forum criticize her for for trying to change too much too quickly. 

 

 

 

 

The Chantry publishing it along with a biased narrative doesn't keep people from reading the source material and coming to their own conclusion. But Dalish telling the abridged tale (as oral histories always are) doesn't. That could only happen if the Dalish published the tale- but I don't recall any transcripts being sent out. Only a hala and the tale which the Dalish in question wanted to tell.

 

 

You're right it doesn't stop people from reading the original source. Yet declaring something heretical to study when the entire continent more or less believes the Divine is the mouthpiece of Andraste and the Maker, does. 

 

 

Iakus wrote...
 

Nope.  They just give the people of Red Crossing a halla.

 

And if you let Leliana handle the handover, the people there have no clue what it's all about, and think they're holding an animal sacred to the Dalish hostage.

 

True, but they make it clear to the Inquisition that is why they want to send the Halla, as an apology, but they feared the people there wouldn't accept it if it came from them so they asked the Inquisition to handle it and spread the message, and the Inquisitor gets to choose how to present it. If he chooses a path that makes it so the people don't know why they have the halla, that's hardly the Dalish's fault...

 

Unless the Inquisitor is Dalish of course. lol. 

[Bardox9]

The Halla thing always seemed strange to me. I mean, given the events between the Dalish and the peopel of Red Crossing, That's their response? The planes are swarming with Halla. Sacred or not, it's not much of an apology. Not sure how you could apologize for such a thing, but... a Halla? "I acknowledge there was innocent blood spilled by my ancestors, but... here's a funky looking deer. Please don't eat it..."

[dragonflight288]

The Halla thing always seemed strange to me. I mean, given the events between the Dalish and the peopel of Red Crossing, That's their response? The planes are swarming with Halla. Sacred or not, it's not much of an apology. Not sure how you could apologize for such a thing, but... a Halla? "I acknowledge there was innocent blood spilled by my ancestors, but... here's a funky looking deer. Please don't eat it..."

Taken in context with Dalish culture, it's the most profound thing they can do.

In origins, we see the halls catetaker communicate with them. The halls are not beasts of burden to them, but friends. It is even described that a keeper chooses when a clan leaves an area, but it is the halla who choose where they go.

It may not mean much to humans, but to the elves it is the single most significant gesture they can offer.

[Dean_the_Young]

Again, Awakening, and picking up the quest for seeking the Canticle of Maferath. 

 

This random scholar in Awakening wants the Warden track down missing parts of the Dissonent Verse of the Canticle of Maferath, as it had been purposefully removed, and the Merchant Quest Board outright says simply studying the Dissonent Verses is considered Heresy by the Chantry. 

 

And? The modern Chantry doesn't burn people at the stake for heresy. Or for asking about banned literature.

 

 

It's not a matter of simply having them. It's also an attempt to remove their existence. Which is also shown, again, by the chantry priestess telling the elf in Haven that there never was a canticle written by an elf. 

 

 

Except that it also remains a historical fact- and one known and preserved within the Chantry's records as well. Records known by other priestesses and scholars and, guess what, even elves in haven.

 

 

You don't get to cite one part of an institution without recognizing the rest of the institution- and its limits. The Chantry isn't the only force for history in Thedas, nor is it monolithic.
 

 

 

Now, if this chantry scholar decided to publish the account in its entirety as written by the elves, then that would be awesome. If they decide to publish the Chantry's version of it, spread it far and wide without including the proper context of the situation, well, it wouldn't be factually incorrect as I'e already said, but it would remove the true motivation of the elves killing the human lover and the true motivation of the elven defector.

 

 

And what is this boogey-boo 'Chantry's version of it'? What great historical revisionism do you see? The Dales transcript is already damning as it is, and the motives of the elves involved already abhorrent. The Dales account doesn't undermine or even challenge the Chantry's version.

 

More to the point, why do you expect the modern Chantry, in this age and in this place, to cover up the source material? What's the point? If you're afraid the Chantry would use it to bash the Dalish, that's a use, but they don't need edits for that. They could just use the truth of what's there.

 

You can't be expected to be taken credibly if your answer is that the Chantry always lies and will only lie if given the chance.
 

 

 

As for the Dissonent Verses being restored, yes, but Shartan's canticle is ONLY restored under Leliana as she tries to remove all racism and bigotry in the Chantry, something many on the forum criticize her for for trying to change too much too quickly. 

 

 

Missing the point, and bringing up irrelevant onces. The Canticle wouldn't be able to be restored in the first place were it actually eradicated and purged from all the records.

 

Consider the far more relevant point instead that it's the chantry, and not the Dalish, who are able to remember the existence and substance of the Canticle even when it was out of favor.

 

 

 

You're right it doesn't stop people from reading the original source. Yet declaring something heretical to study when the entire continent more or less believes the Divine is the mouthpiece of Andraste and the Maker, does. 

 

 

 

Apparently not, or no one would be able to know and restore it.

 

If the Chantry's purging were as thorough or effective as you imply, there'd be no issue because no one would know about the Canticle.
 

 

 

True, but they make it clear to the Inquisition that is why they want to send the Halla, as an apology, but they feared the people there wouldn't accept it if it came from them so they asked the Inquisition to handle it and spread the message, and the Inquisitor gets to choose how to present it. If he chooses a path that makes it so the people don't know why they have the halla, that's hardly the Dalish's fault...

 

 

It absolutely is.

 

The Dalish have the 'truth'- the source material- and if they're not spreading it or sharing it themselves, they're as guilty as a cover-up as you accuse the Chantry of. More so, actually, since they're actually hoarding it and not sharing it, while we're quibbling about if the Chantry might make edits along the way (without addressing the what, or the why).

 

 

The argument cuts both ways. If the Inquisition is expected to carry the word of a Dales atrocity for the Dalish, then it can certainly be expected to point out 'that's not what we gave you' if the Sinister Chantry Conspiracy tries to release an edited version.

 

 

 

 

You're changing the goalposts here. Your earlier standard and objection to the Chantry was that they wouldn't share the truth. How is that concern addressed by an unexplained apology that isn't even understood as such, let alone known what for?