169 réponses à ce sujet

[thesuperdarkone2]

Why are people even debating this? Giving it to the Dalish is obviously the good option since they accept their fault in what they did and try to give essentially an apology gift whereas the Chantry completely scrubs all human involvement and makes it seem like it was all the elves fault and would be used to justify the Chantry's racism against elves. 

 

Also, the Chantry DOES censor things. Just look at Glandivaris' description in WOT2 vs the actual description in DA2. The Chantry version in WOT straight up censors the story. Seriously, why are people defending the Chantry since they are obviously just going to use it to justify their bigotry?

 

More and more, Divine Leliana is proving to be the Divine that Thedas needs

[Bardox9]

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.

I know the Dalish don't have much and their odd connection to the Halla would make it seem like an important gesture to them, but it would mean little to nothing to anyone else. They know that other races see Halla as little more the game for hunting. IDK...

 

Well... I suppose it's the thought that counts.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

It's also irrelevant to preserving or spreading the truth. That was supposed to be what was important, wasn't it?

 

Dalish apologies are fine and long overdue, but they shouldn't depend on the source of the truth. And they definitely shouldn't come at the cost of monopolizing and hiding the truth to the point that other people don't know what they're being apologized for.

[Dean_the_Young]

Why are people even debating this? Giving it to the Dalish is obviously the good option since they accept their fault in what they did and try to give essentially an apology gift whereas the Chantry completely scrubs all human involvement and makes it seem like it was all the elves fault and would be used to justify the Chantry's racism against elves. 

 

Since those are debatable half-truths at best and presumption at worst, that would probably be the reason for debate.

 

 

 

Also, the Chantry DOES censor things. Just look at Glandivaris' description in WOT2 vs the actual description in DA2. The Chantry version in WOT straight up censors the story. Seriously, why are people defending the Chantry since they are obviously just going to use it to justify their bigotry?

 

 

No one denies the Chantry censors things. People contest that the Chantry censors all things, are incapable of preserving the truth, and that their censoring of their official viewpoint is worse than other parties like the Dalish.

 

Since the Dalish response to learning that the Dales were unjustified in the attack on Red Crossing is to 'share' the blame with the humans, equivicating fault, the same charge of justifying their bigotry can apply to the Dalish.

 

 

 

More and more, Divine Leliana is proving to be the Divine that Thedas needs

 

 

If by 'needs' you mean 'does what I want,' sure.

[dragonflight288]

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

 

 

I never said it did. 

 

I simply think that a side-by-side comparison on the Dalish's approach to history and the Chantry's approach to history are different and I think the Dalish have the better attitude going into it. 

 

The Chantry has much more organization, educated men and women, vast libraries of information and full time historians and scholars like Genitivi, which are things the Dalish simply do not have, thus the Chantry has a huge advantage in ability to get information out.

 

But that same history also shows us that the Chantry has a history of editing out inconvenient facts, whereas the Dalish simply had the vast majority of their history post-Andraste wiped out with the annihilation of the Dales and the ethnic cleansing that followed, and are scrounging to pick up the pieces, and more often than not, get that history wrong. But because they have so little of it, they treasure what they do have far more than the Chantry and many of its followers do. 

 

With exceptions of course. Sister Petrine and her constant search for truth and Genitivi being significant examples.

 

 

 

 

 

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.
 

 

Preserved, but discouraged, even heretical, which is a theological fact about the Chantry. 

 

You know, I think we disagree less than it may seem.

 

I don't think we're disagreeing on the Chantry's capability to preserve things and mostly disagreeing on the approach to acknowledging that history. I'm all for seeking knowledge, like that scholar in Awakening from the Merchant's Board does, and as Genitive and Sister Petrine do, I simply dislike the idea of declaring political and socially inconvenient aspects of scripture and history to be heresy to study.

 

 

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.

 

I see the omission of the murder of Siona's sister as negligent, as without it removes an aspect of guilt on the part of humans. It may not have been the humans of red crossing but it most certainly colored Siona's attitude about humans going in.

 

I also see them saying that the elf converting to the Chantry was responded by murdering his lover as contextually false, again due to an omission of motivation and applying a new one in its place. 

 

An Emerald Knight leaves his order of knights, his post and his country to be with a human lover. This knight likely has information on border strength, troop positions, and who knows what else. The Emerald Knights were tracking down a potential traitor, something the Chantry Scholar's response completely overlooks. 

 

Every country, both in-game and real life, has such squads acting outside its borders, and I believe the Emerald Knights were justified in tracking down and trying to nip in the bud a potential national security leak.

 

So I take issue with the Chantry scholar saying that the murder of the human woman was a response to him converting, when such is not the case.

 

If you are taking my responses to be that the Chantry does lie and will always lie, then I am not making myself clear. I think that the Chantry and its scholars already have a strong opinion on the events of Red Crossing even before the Inquisitor finds out the truth, and the record simply confirms what they themselves already believed.

 

Everyone, to a certain extent, will see what they want to see looking at the exact same thing. Just look at the debate we're having. You and others don't see the human fault, and I and others don't give 100% blame to the elves or the Emerald Knights and it leads to this discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

I'll just point to my first and second response in this post.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Well, like the Canticle of Maferath, there may be more than one place to find it. The Scholar in Awakening asks the Warden to find it carved on stone statues in the middle of the woods. He couldn't find it elsewhere.

 

But to clarify, I don't think the Chantry outright destroys information. I think they publish their interpretation of it and strongly discourage people from looking up and studying the things they don't preach, and a few outspoken idealists like Genitive and Petrine keep that information relevant despite those who would wish it otherwise. 

 

 

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.

 

Last I looked, the Dalish don't hoard information. They gather and keep it safe, and then they share it with the other clans once every ten years when they all meet up and share new discoveries with each other, trade clan members to keep genetic diversity and if applicable transfer mages from clans that have too many to clans that need more, at least until Inquisition retconned how they treat mages. 

 

From there, some clans most certainly would hoard that knowledge and hold over humans, others would likely share it, and maybe some simply wouldn't care. 

 

Some clans, like Levallan, may have good relations with humans, and I don't see them keeping such information away. 

 

The clan in the plains is trying to apologize for the elven role in the tragedy of red crossing but deals with a culture clash.

 

Personally, I'd have preferred to not make a choice, bring the record back to Skyhold, make a few copies and offer the information to both. 

 

 

And I'm not changing goalposts. The Dalish are offering an apology in the most significant way they know how should they get the information, and it's up the Inquisition to try and make the people of Red Crossing understand what its for at the request of the Dalish because they felt that the humans wouldn't accept it if it came from the clan, or understand the significance. 

 

 

***

 

Long story short, though, I like the Dalish response more than the Chantry response. The Chantry says elves are violent barbarians, the Dalish, or at least one clan, tries to take the very first step in mending a long-since burnt bridge. 

[dragonflight288]

I know the Dalish don't have much and their odd connection to the Halla would make it seem like an important gesture to them, but it would mean little to nothing to anyone else. They know that other races see Halla as little more the game for hunting. IDK...

 

Well... I suppose it's the thought that counts.

 

Yup.

 

Of course, it takes a very special person to go out of their way to learn the customs of another they have a conflicted history with just to make a good first impression. 

 

Like taking Fenris with you to see the Arishok for the first time in DA2 earns huge points with him because Fenris is able to quote the Qun and gives proper respect the Qun demands, something that makes the Arishok grow less and less disgusted. Or Josephine learning an elvish greeting to meet a Dalish Inquisitor the first time. 

 

It stands out because it's so rare, and that's what makes it awesome. 

[dragonflight288]

It's also irrelevant to preserving or spreading the truth. That was supposed to be what was important, wasn't it?

 

Dalish apologies are fine and long overdue, but they shouldn't depend on the source of the truth. And they definitely shouldn't come at the cost of monopolizing and hiding the truth to the point that other people don't know what they're being apologized for.

 

True, unfortunately that's the result of a culture clash. 

 

As the Warden can tell Lanaya as she asks how humans think of the history with the Dalish, most simply don't think about it, whereas the Dalish DO have a strong victim complex and tell themselves stories practically every day about how they have been wronged and why they are the true elvhen. 

 

Which is one of the biggest problems of the Dalish. As that one Hunter says, culturally they keep old wounds raw and fresh to justify their situation and feelings.

 

To be honest, nether group is as bad as the dwarven Shaperate and how they will write things out of the memories so they don't have to deal with the shame of having it there, and within a generation the information is lost forever unless there are remote records elsewhere.

[Iakus]

 

Last I looked, the Dalish don't hoard information. They gather and keep it safe, and then they share it with the other clans once every ten years when they all meet up and share new discoveries with each other, trade clan members to keep genetic diversity and if applicable transfer mages from clans that have too many to clans that need more, at least until Inquisition retconned how they treat mages. 

 

From there, some clans most certainly would hoard that knowledge and hold over humans, others would likely share it, and maybe some simply wouldn't care. 

 

Some clans, like Levallan, may have good relations with humans, and I don't see them keeping such information away. 

 

The clan in the plains is trying to apologize for the elven role in the tragedy of red crossing but deals with a culture clash.

 

Personally, I'd have preferred to not make a choice, bring the record back to Skyhold, make a few copies and offer the information to both. 

 

 

And I'm not changing goalposts. The Dalish are offering an apology in the most significant way they know how should they get the information, and it's up the Inquisition to try and make the people of Red Crossing understand what its for at the request of the Dalish because they felt that the humans wouldn't accept it if it came from the clan, or understand the significance. 

 

 

***

 

Long story short, though, I like the Dalish response more than the Chantry response. The Chantry says elves are violent barbarians, the Dalish, or at least one clan, tries to take the very first step in mending a long-since burnt bridge. 

Just want to point out, though, the Dalish clans are fragmenting.  Meeting once a decade simply isn't enough for them to maintain cultural cohesion.  The clans have been becoming more and more...clannish.  And are in fact focusing on different aspects of "Dalish" culture and forgetting the rest.  I'm thinking the "truth" of what happened would be slow to travel amongst the Dalish, and may in fact be rejected by a large portion of it.

 

 

My own wish is to get Varric to fire up his printing press and publish it himself.  

And again, this War Table mission is one clan that happens to operate near Red Crossing.  

[dragonflight288]

Just want to point out, though, the Dalish clans are fragmenting.  Meeting once a decade simply isn't enough for them to maintain cultural cohesion.  The clans have been becoming more and more...clannish.  And are in fact focusing on different aspects of "Dalish" culture and forgetting the rest.  I'm thinking the "truth" of what happened would be slow to travel amongst the Dalish, and may in fact be rejected by a large portion of it.

 

 

My own wish is to get Varric to fire up his printing press and publish it himself.  

And again, this War Table mission is one clan that happens to operate near Red Crossing.  

 

True.

 

Varric and a printing press, making copies and delivering them to multiple people would be nice. 

[In Exile]

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.

To begin with, you're not properly distinguishing between the groups here - this obsession with talking about "humans" and "elves" as if the few actors at issue here are exhaustive and representative of two nations is absurd.

It doesn't matter who was distraught. At the moment the Emerald Knights crossed into Orlais, they committed treason and were all deserters themselves, unless the Dalish gave them such unchecked autonomy that the entire polity is responsible for the EKs actions because that's a unit that can't go rogue.

But despite all your absurd obfuscation - and it is completely absurd, as you're suggesting that a rogue military unit that violated the sovereign borders of another nation are entirely within their rights to massacre the inhabitants thereof when they react poorly to an armed incursion into their town that culminated in the death of one of their fellows - the situation is painfully clear.

The Emerald Knights - without any formal authority or authorisation - violated the sovereign border of Orlais armed to the hilt. They massed in a village and executed a native. They were then confronted by violent natives caught in the midst of an armed invasion by a superior foe - in training and experience.

To say that the townsfolk are to blame is rank insanity. Here's a parallel:

A team of Navy SEALS decide to hunt down Edward Snowden with no authorisation from the US government. They go rogue. They march - armed - into a Russian town. They shoot a Russian civilian. They are met with resistance and gun down everyone in the town. They suffer almost no casualties.

In the short period of time before we all die in the ensuing nuclear holocaust - which would only be avoided by very careful diplomacy and the US disavowing the renegades - the idea that "both sides" would be at fault here is a notion that no one would take seriously.

Let's use another analogy.

If I think my girlfriend is cheating on me and break into the house of another man, visibly armed, shoot his dog because it came at me and then I blow his brains out in announced self defence because he came at me with a weapon, the idea that we are both at fault is again absurd.

The irony here is that the Dales AREN'T at fault for Red Crossing. They didn't authorise the EK to march into sovereign Orlean territory. They didn't authorise or even know about the slaughter of a village. For all we know at this time the entire politics of the nation were dedicated towards disarming tension with Orlais.

But to suggest on the actual facts of this conflict that the victims that were massacred in their homes for the temerity of confronting armed invaders are somehow equally culpable is just nonsense. It's the worst kind or victim blaming.

Here's the last parallel I can give. The genocide of the Dales was in part retribution for the Dales invading and sacking large parts of Orlais. To say that the Dalish are to blame for this because they fought is absurd. But it is the same type of victim blaming login being advanced here.

[Gervaise]

There are two completely separate issues here.   The first is about who you give the scroll to and how they react.   The Dalish do react with far more grace and humility than the Chantry do.   The latter are totally biased and as been stated above, if they do publish anything it will likely be heavily censored.    Whilst it is not obvious that the Dalish will publish, it should be borne in mind that the clan of Ameridan had been saying for years that he was one of them but everyone dismissed the notion.   It is hardly likely that Dalish would have done so (although it does seem odd that a Dalish Inquisitor is entirely unaware of the history) but that it was the Chantry and the historians of Orlais that refused to believe them.   So there is a good chance that the Dalish clan will share the information at the very least with scholars who are interested.

 

The other issue is about how much Red Crossing actually had to do with the Exalted March on the Dales and the fact is its importance has been way overplayed in DAI.   Relations between the two nations were deteriorating in Ameridan's time, nearly 100 years before Red Crossing.    The fact is that Drakon may have avoided empire building in the Dales but he was extending his borders elsewhere.    He had already invaded Ferelden for the first time before the founding of the Chantry.   Something I find hard to envisage he could do successfully without crossing the Dales, so it would seem that the leadership may have been co-operating with him, or may be he just marched through without asking.   Regardless, he had also extended his empire into Nevarra and later into the Anderfels on the back of the Blight.   Having observed his intentions towards other nations, if not immediately towards themselves, the Dalish leadership decided that Orlais was no better than Tevinter and perhaps it would be better to let the Blight take them.   Not everyone shared this view; Ameridan didn't, but Cassandra was right in saying that the seeds of the later conflict were sown back then.

 

Once the Blight had ended, other nations started to kick back against the Orlesian occupation.   The Chantry also started a more intensive conversion policy on the surrounding lands.   The Divine called the next 100 years the Glory Age, which sort of hinted how they were planning on taking things.   Tensions grew between the two nations and Red Crossing didn't help but I would say it was the sack of Montsimmard and Val Royeaux that really tipped the scales towards all out war under the banner of the Exalted March.    Orlais probably would have got round to invading the Dales eventually even without provocation but even a pro-elf lobbyist like me can see that attacking the capital city of Orlais and seat of the Chantry was never going to end well.   May be if the elves had got a few other nations on side it would have been a different story and considering Orlais had occupied Ferelden, they could have looked there for assistance if they had played the diplomacy game better in the previous 100 years but that wasn't the Dalish way.

[In Exile]

Once the Blight had ended, other nations started to kick back against the Orlesian occupation.   The Chantry also started a more intensive conversion policy on the surrounding lands.   The Divine called the next 100 years the Glory Age, which sort of hinted how they were planning on taking things.   Tensions grew between the two nations and Red Crossing didn't help but I would say it was the sack of Montsimmard and Val Royeaux that really tipped the scales towards all out war under the banner of the Exalted March.    Orlais probably would have got round to invading the Dales eventually even without provocation but even a pro-elf lobbyist like me can see that attacking the capital city of Orlais and seat of the Chantry was never going to end well.   May be if the elves had got a few other nations on side it would have been a different story and considering Orlais had occupied Ferelden, they could have looked there for assistance if they had played the diplomacy game better in the previous 100 years but that wasn't the Dalish way.

 

In a different thread, someone made the very insightful point that we don't know who started the war in the sense of moving first or even antagonizing first just because we know that Orlais was eventually invaded before the Dales were eventually defeated and (re-)invaded. 

 

And to be honest, the idea that the "Exalted" March involved just Orlais is confusing. What was kept back? My theory has always been mages and templars (to counter Dalish mages), but it's a weird situation and it's not clear why the Chantry didn't commit these forces at first if Orlais wasn't the aggressor. 

[Ashagar]

Well we know that declaring the exalted march even after the sack of Val Royeaux and over half of Orlais falling was controversial then and later so I assume there must be a reason why they were so reluctant to declare one against the elves even though they had declared one against the Qunari before.

[Heimdall]

He had already invaded Ferelden for the first time before the founding of the Chantry.   Something I find hard to envisage he could do successfully without crossing the Dales, so it would seem that the leadership may have been co-operating with him, or may be he just marched through without asking.

He could have transported his army by sea, though I'm not actually clear on whether the border of the Dales was on the sea.  Halamshiral is the only city we know was part of the Dales, but Jader is never referenced as a Dalish city.

[Walter Black]

Ugh, connection problems...

[Master Warder Z_]

Well we know that declaring the exalted march even after the sack of Val Royeaux and over half of Orlais falling was controversial then and later so I assume there must be a reason why they were so reluctant to declare one against the elves even though they had declared one against the Qunari before.

 

Truth be told I have actually given that matter a great deal of thought, and I think it has a lot to do with the will of Andraste and the whole promise of Shartan, back when that actually meant something, I mean to declare war on a gift given by their equivalent to Jesus...I mean give that serious consideration, the Chantry for the most part is actually devout, they look at scripture and let it dictate their lives, if Andraste said the elves were to be granted this land and then later on her heirs actually gave it to the elves, who are they mere humans to overturn that?
 

But eventually practically has to win out over faith, the elves were invading.

[dragonflight288]

To begin with, you're not properly distinguishing between the groups here - this obsession with talking about "humans" and "elves" as if the few actors at issue here are exhaustive and representative of two nations is absurd.

It doesn't matter who was distraught. At the moment the Emerald Knights crossed into Orlais, they committed treason and were all deserters themselves, unless the Dalish gave them such unchecked autonomy that the entire polity is responsible for the EKs actions because that's a unit that can't go rogue.

But despite all your absurd obfuscation - and it is completely absurd, as you're suggesting that a rogue military unit that violated the sovereign borders of another nation are entirely within their rights to massacre the inhabitants thereof when they react poorly to an armed incursion into their town that culminated in the death of one of their fellows - the situation is painfully clear.

The Emerald Knights - without any formal authority or authorisation - violated the sovereign border of Orlais armed to the hilt. They massed in a village and executed a native. They were then confronted by violent natives caught in the midst of an armed invasion by a superior foe - in training and experience.

To say that the townsfolk are to blame is rank insanity. Here's a parallel:

A team of Navy SEALS decide to hunt down Edward Snowden with no authorisation from the US government. They go rogue. They march - armed - into a Russian town. They shoot a Russian civilian. They are met with resistance and gun down everyone in the town. They suffer almost no casualties.

In the short period of time before we all die in the ensuing nuclear holocaust - which would only be avoided by very careful diplomacy and the US disavowing the renegades - the idea that "both sides" would be at fault here is a notion that no one would take seriously.

Let's use another analogy.

If I think my girlfriend is cheating on me and break into the house of another man, visibly armed, shoot his dog because it came at me and then I blow his brains out in announced self defence because he came at me with a weapon, the idea that we are both at fault is again absurd.

The irony here is that the Dales AREN'T at fault for Red Crossing. They didn't authorise the EK to march into sovereign Orlean territory. They didn't authorise or even know about the slaughter of a village. For all we know at this time the entire politics of the nation were dedicated towards disarming tension with Orlais.

But to suggest on the actual facts of this conflict that the victims that were massacred in their homes for the temerity of confronting armed invaders are somehow equally culpable is just nonsense. It's the worst kind or victim blaming.

Here's the last parallel I can give. The genocide of the Dales was in part retribution for the Dales invading and sacking large parts of Orlais. To say that the Dalish are to blame for this because they fought is absurd. But it is the same type of victim blaming login being advanced here.

 

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not blaming the villagers any more than I am blaming the elves. I'm simply making a case that the elves were justified in their actions, and I believe I said on page 4 that I also said that the humans were justified in theirs. I outright said it was just a tragic situation.

 

If anyone holds blame in this situation, it is Siona and Siona alone, plus whatever humans were involved in killing her sister. 

[The Baconer]

Well we know that declaring the exalted march even after the sack of Val Royeaux and over half of Orlais falling was controversial then and later so I assume there must be a reason why they were so reluctant to declare one against the elves even though they had declared one against the Qunari before.

 

The Exalted Marches against the Qunari occur ~500 years after the conquest of the Dales. 

[Gervaise]

There are obviously some important bits of history missing from the account and now we are moving north, we are never likely to know.

 

If Orlais was reluctant to invade the Dales because it was a gift to elves, then what provoked the Dales to attack Orlais?   Sending a few missionaries and Templars was surely not enough provocation.   Surely you just escort them to your border and tell them not to come back.   So there had to have been more of a threat that made the Dalish think, enough is enough we need to deal with this at its origin.   Skirmishes are said to have begun between the two nations in 2:5 but Red Crossing did not occur until 2:9, so the four years of skirmishes had built up an air of tension before that event and probably accounted for why things kicked off so easily.

 

Something was brewing, otherwise there would have been no need for Orlais to use Red Crossing as a means of reducing sympathy for the elves among other nations.  That was its chief significance.   They told other nations of the elven atrocities committed at Red Crossing so if the Dales had sent diplomats to ask for support, the other nations would have refused.

 

The initial attack by the elves must have caught Orlais on the hop because within a year of Red Crossing they managed to get all the way to Val Royeaux before the death of their chief commander halted their progress.   However, even with the calling of the Exalted March, it was another 10 years before Orlais finally conquered Halamshiral and subsequently came the final battle on the Exalted Plains

 

The thing is that normally when you conquer a nation, you tend to leave all the commoners in place  as your work force and simply replace the rulers.   That's what they did elsewhere.   However, in the Dales they rounded up all the elves, which is why you suspect it was not just about getting rid of corrupt rulers and heretic mages but a complete land grab.   Mind you it is hinted in Masked Empire that because the Dalish who fled were said to be their nobility, the Orlesians were always fearful they would lead any attempt at re-conquest, which may account for why they didn't want to leave any elves around for them to lead.    It is only when Celene sees the pitiful small number of elves that comprise individual clans that she realises they were never a threat and in fact it is the elves in the cities that they need to worry about.

[stop_him]

I only give the artifact to the Chantry in "evil" playthroughs. The Chantry is basically Cerberus--vehemently pro-human, anti-elf, anti-dwarf, and anti-qunari.

 

I want to see the Chantry burn. 

[Ashagar]

Well that is rather over blowing the chantry... They are a human centeric organization in a world dominated by humans though and they are anti-qunari though seems a rather sane and moral choice unless you support oppressive fantasy counterpart 1984ish distopian societies complete with thought police ,ministries of love and truth and destroying peoples minds that sends death squads across thadas to try to keep the locals more primitive.

[Heimdall]

Truth be told I have actually given that matter a great deal of thought, and I think it has a lot to do with the will of Andraste and the whole promise of Shartan, back when that actually meant something, I mean to declare war on a gift given by their equivalent to Jesus...I mean give that serious consideration, the Chantry for the most part is actually devout, they look at scripture and let it dictate their lives, if Andraste said the elves were to be granted this land and then later on her heirs actually gave it to the elves, who are they mere humans to overturn that?

But eventually practically has to win out over faith, the elves were invading.

I'm guessing they saw the approach of heathen elves to the center of the Chantry faith as a sign that they had betrayed Andraste's friendship (Not unreasonably), or something.

[Master Warder Z_]

I'm guessing they saw the approach of heathen elves to the center of the Chantry faith as a sign that they had betrayed Andraste's friendship (Not unreasonably), or something.

 

Could be, I think those elves were making a mockery of the idea that Shartan and Andraste fought, bled and died alongside each other. I mean that to me is what the relationship could be, the elves and humans working together, doing that they brought the Imperium to it's knees, with conventional armies and guerrilla tactics they brought down the greatest Empire in history. But that was war, friendships forged in battle are fickle ones and enemies and allies change at the behest of politics and the era.

[MisterJB]

If by 'needs' you mean 'does what I want,' sure.

Personally, I believe Cassandra is the Archon Tevinter needs.

Sure, she will utterly reduce the culture into an unrecognizable mix of whatever suits her personal beliefs and is useful to her goals but you know, I romanced her and she will be doing what I want.

 

At the very least, Cassandra would have some respect for millennia old tenets and not change them based on whether the Warden wants to have sex with her or not.

 

[Xilizhra]

Personally, I believe Cassandra is the Archon Tevinter needs.

Sure, she will utterly reduce the culture into an unrecognizable mix of whatever suits her personal beliefs and is useful to her goals but you know, I romanced her and she will be doing what I want.

 

At the very least, Cassandra would have some respect for millennia old tenets and not change them based on whether the Warden wants to have sex with her or not.

I'm not sure why you think that southern Thedosian culture would be irreparably damaged by Leliana, given how little she actually changes. Also, the Chantry is less than a millennium old.