657 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

Didn't the start of the City Elf origin begin with a sister marrying the warden and their betrothed, and later objecting to their kidnapping?

 

Wasn't there templars in the alienage investigating demons in origins? 

 

Weren't there elves in the Inquisition throughout the game? 

 

This is bias imo. You don't see the chantry aiding the elves within the alienages because you don't want to. Truth is, the Chantry is one of the more egalitarian organizations in Thedas, with almost no systematic racial bias, or even a gender bias. 

 

Change comes slowly, push too quickly and you just get violence. Also I hate this idea that unless you're actively working to change something, you're complicit in it. Are the Dalish complicit in the treatment of the castless or of othering of surface dwarves? 

 

1) Did the sister call the city or chantry authorities for help when a noble and buddies abducted several elf women to get raped and murdered? No. The city elf had to take matters into his/her own hands and then the guards came in to arrest him/her for daring to fight back instead of getting raped or murdered.

 

2) One templar investigating a haunted house with demons. Never saw the templars or chantry do anything about the lockdown or about the other horrid conditions in the Alienage.

 

3) Missing the point entirely, so go back and read over the city elf section again.

 

4) Your label means nothing to me, prove me wrong. Kind of hard to see that when the Chantry PUT the elves into those Alienages in the first place and stripped the elves of their homeland and culture for political and religious reasons. Or when the Chantry manipulates doctrine and history to put itself on the high ground as they did with removing and marginalizing Shartan's role in Andraste's story or rendering the verses about him as heresy because...equality. Yeah, the elves and mages really have nothing to whine or complain about.

 

5) At the same time, too slow and gradual of change leads to subtle or violent repression to maintain the status quo or leads to a situation where nothing truly changes. Change can and often is violent regardless of pace or method, but when change is needed than to neglect to take necessary actions is tantamount to irresponsibility. 

 

The Chantry is just as responsible for the conditions of the Alienages because they made the Alienages per the command of Divine Renata after the Exalted March on the Dales. The fact that we never hear of the Chantry truly trying to do anything for the lives of the elves that they impoverished and that the Chantry knowingly works closely with a nation whose treatment of elves is truly appalling means that the Chantry can't pretend to not have dirty hands. That's like saying that you're not responsible for kicking a man out of his home and forcing him to leave in an alleyway where you know people are waiting to torment the man. The best positive example I can come up with is the Grand Cleric condemning Loghain for selling elves, but words are pretty different from actions and this came only after the Hero of Ferelden already saved the day practically by himself. And where was the Chantry condemnation when Orlesians were selling Ferelden elves as property? Or when Orlais made an aggressive and unprovoked invasion of Ferelden? Sound's like favoritism as in the opposite of egalitarianism.

 

Seriously, one of the Chantry's greatest Anointed heroes is a guy who only participated in the Exalted March against the Dales because he "loved to kill elves". I am not making that up, the Chantry actually regard this guy as a "Hand of the Maker". How egalitarian are you to hold up a quoted and blatant murderous racist as an example of your faith? 

 

There's no bias here, I'm just reporting the facts as they are.

 

If I overlooked something then feel free to show me.

[German Soldier]

That's a shame if so. I like Flemeth a lot more than Morrigan and would rather she still be around than Morrigan taking that role. 

I'm against this Mythal nonsense it's been there since 2009 and it's time to end it not to mention that i don't see way Mythal should be sent again within the same family rather than choose a new character maybe a female elf?

[IHaveReturned1999]

1) Did the sister call the city or chantry authorities for help when a noble and buddies abducted several elf women to get raped and murdered? No. The city elf had to take matters into his/her own hands and then the guards came in to arrest him/her for daring to fight back instead of getting raped or murdered.

2) One templar investigating a haunted house with demons. Never saw the templars or chantry do anything about the lockdown or about the other horrid conditions in the Alienage.

3) Missing the point entirely, so go back and read over the city elf section again.

4) Your label means nothing to me, prove me wrong. Kind of hard to see that when the Chantry PUT the elves into those Alienages in the first place and stripped the elves of their homeland and culture for political and religious reasons. Or when the Chantry manipulates doctrine and history to put itself on the high ground as they did with removing and marginalizing Shartan's role in Andraste's story or rendering the verses about him as heresy because...equality. Yeah, the elves and mages really have nothing to whine or complain about.

5) At the same time, too slow and gradual of change leads to subtle or violent repression to maintain the status quo or leads to a situation where nothing truly changes. Change can and often is violent regardless of pace or method, but when change is needed than to neglect to take necessary actions is tantamount to irresponsibility.

The Chantry is just as responsible for the conditions of the Alienages because they made the Alienages per the command of Divine Renata after the Exalted March on the Dales. The fact that we never hear of the Chantry truly trying to do anything for the lives of the elves that they impoverished and that the Chantry knowingly works closely with a nation whose treatment of elves is truly appalling means that the Chantry can't pretend to not have dirty hands. That's like saying that you're not responsible for kicking a man out of his home and forcing him to leave in an alleyway where you know people are waiting to torment the man. The best positive example I can come up with is the Grand Cleric condemning Loghain for selling elves, but words are pretty different from actions and this came only after the Hero of Ferelden already saved the day practically by himself. And where was the Chantry condemnation when Orlesians were selling Ferelden elves as property? Or when Orlais made an aggressive and unprovoked invasion of Ferelden? Sound's like favoritism as in the opposite of egalitarianism.

Seriously, one of the Chantry's greatest Anointed heroes is a guy who only participated in the Exalted March against the Dales because he "loved to kill elves". I am not making that up, the Chantry actually regard this guy as a "Hand of the Maker". How egalitarian are you to hold up a quoted and blatant murderous racist as an example of your faith?

There's no bias here, I'm just reporting the facts as they are.

If I overlooked something then feel free to show me.

Amen!

[Bayonet Hipshot]

OP's spot on.

 

The favoritism becomes even more blatant with how the writers retcon, whitewash, backtrack and blackwash to try and hold up the Chantry on a platter higher than other faiths.

 

1) In-game, Alistair speculates that Templar abilities do not require lyrium and that lyrium is just a means of control by the Chantry. Speculation supported by how Alistair and the Warden can use templar powers without lyrium and leaves us thinking about what templar abilities truly are and whether they qualify as magic.

 

But Gaider retconned Alistair and turned him into a liar by strictly confirm that lyrium is necessary for Templar powers. Which basically infers that Alistair was lying and taking lyrium behind your back or that this part of the conversation never happened. But then in Inquisition, the writers contradict themselves when Cullen confirms that templars don't start taking lyrium until after they complete their vows and Alistair was recruited before his training and yet could still use templar powers despite not taking that first draught of lyrium. Sloppy writing? Lack of narrative coherence maintenance? Or blatant backtracking which results in more potential plot holes?

 

2) The Dalish system was not portrayed as better or worst than the Chantry system, just different. However, once two games confirm that the Chantry approach to magic is objectively problematic and makes more problems than it solved, it looks like the writers realized that other magic systems like the Dalish seemed far better by comparison. So instead of acknowledging this fact and working it into the story, the writers throw in a bullshit "three mage" rule for the sake of knocking down and blackwashing the Dalish to try and make the Chantry seem better.

 

However, this still fails due to the fact that the Dalish don't view magic as a corrupting influence, merely as a natural part of the world. Therefore, they appear to view magic with healthy respect and caution rather than dogmatic suppression and fear like Andrastians do. And the Dalish viewpoint of magic didn't result in a continent-spanning war that brought their civilization and system of faith to the brink of destruction. Which makes the "three mage" rule retcon and other slaps in the face to the Dalish all the more obvious as intentional or unintentional incidents of black-washing.

 

3) The noteworthy absence of City elves and the lack of reference to their plight also seems like a deliberate exclusion to whitewash the Chantry. Not only to keep things PC, but to also keep from reminding the players that there's an entire caste of people whom are oppressed, tormented and abused and the Chantry either looks the other way or condones it. Oh wait! It was the Chantry who ordered the alienages to be set up in the first place. Places of fervent poverty where people are barred from livable work and the right to defend themselves; hunger and crime are ripe; and elves are often murdered, beaten, raped or sold into slavery without consequence. All under the Chantry's loving watch even though these people are supposed to be followers of the faith as well. This horrific reality of life was forced on city elves as the gift for renouncing their false Dalish beliefs. Yeah, great trade or wait, it's not like the elves truly had a choice what with the Chantry and Orlais completely stripping the elves of the homeland which Andraste's sons gave to them in gratitude for the aid which Shartan and other elves gave their mother.

 

And to add insult to injury, Shartan's deeds were rendered as heresy and banned from the Chant. Even though Shartan and his followers died protecting Andraste. Go ahead and defend this one Bioware, I'll wait. And the "flawed and human" excuse won't work here or anywhere else.

 

With that in mind, it's unsurprising that the Inquisitor can't be a City elf. After all, can you honestly see a City Elf Inquisitor being able to sit in the same room as Celene, knowing that the empress ordered the deaths of thousands of elves? Or that Celene leads a nation where thousands of elves are crammed into a small living space inside of Orlais' capital that's barely the size of Denerem's market square? Or that Orlais' celebrated Chevaliers have a graduation ritual that involves slaughtering elves to "test their blades"? Or the fact that according to the History of Ferelden codex, Ferelden elves were sold as property by Orlesians during the Occupation? And how does this reflect on the Chantry that not only is Orlais the empire that formally organized the Chantry, but that Orlais remains the nation that's closest to the Chantry?

 

But no, none of the above is hardly mentioned or shown because that would make things uncomfortable and weaken any defense of the Chantry that the writers or Chantry supporters could try and come up with.

 

4) Deliberate side-stepping away from true criticism and questioning of Chantry beliefs and Andrastianism which the OP already spoke of in good detail so I won't be redundant here. I will say that the PC is allowed to discuss related matters here, but the game locks the conversation from being too critical of the Chantry and ultimately, the PC is forced to be an Andrastianist ally despite being held as a demi-god himself and could easily have the power and pull to either take control of the Chantry himself (per the dropped Inquisitor Divine ending) or become the founder of a new Andrastian Faith that's closer to Andraste's teachings in practice and writing than the Chantry itself.

 

A truly excellent post.

 

The Chantry is actually a lot worse. Recall the Ferelden occupation of Orlais ? The Chantry condoned the occupation, even though Orlesians treated Fereldans like shite.

 

I do not recall the Maker or Andraste or Shartan saying that people from one nation must conquer and rule over the people of another nation in a cruel manner. However, the Chantry condoned the occupation because the Chantry has Orlesian roots.

 

I suspect that the piety amongst the local populace is the only thing that made Maric and Loghain not kick the Chantry out of Ferelden once it was liberated.

 

So if you play someone like Cousland or Amell, humans who would have been well educated about history, it would not be hard to imagine these possible protagonists disliking the Chantry, even though Cousland is a Human Noble.

 

TL;DR:- Chantry Is A Mess. SAD !

[thesuperdarkone2]

A truly excellent post.

 

The Chantry is actually a lot worse. Recall the Ferelden occupation of Orlais ? The Chantry condoned the occupation, even though Orlesians treated Fereldans like shite.

 

I do not recall the Maker or Andraste or Shartan saying that people from one nation must conquer and rule over the people of another nation in a cruel manner. However, the Chantry condoned the occupation because the Chantry has Orlesian roots.

 

I suspect that the piety amongst the local populace is the only thing that made Maric and Loghain not kick the Chantry out of Ferelden once it was liberated.

 

So if you play someone like Cousland or Amell, humans who would have been well educated about history, it would not be hard to imagine these possible protagonists disliking the Chantry, even though Cousland is a Human Noble.

 

TL;DR:- Chantry Is A Mess. SAD !

What's actually funny about that is that the Grand Cleric who supported Meghren started sucking up to Maric and started saying he was the rightful king after he killed Meghren.

 

Of course, Inquisition seems to whitewash a lot of problems from various factions, like abominations with mages, being oppressive rapist douchebags with templars, chevaliers being monsters to peasants, etc.

[Patchwork]

 

2) The Dalish system was not portrayed as better or worst than the Chantry system, just different. However, once two games confirm that the Chantry approach to magic is objectively problematic and makes more problems than it solved, it looks like the writers realized that other magic systems like the Dalish seemed far better by comparison. So instead of acknowledging this fact and working it into the story, the writers throw in a bullshit "three mage" rule for the sake of knocking down and blackwashing the Dalish to try and make the Chantry seem better.

 

However, this still fails due to the fact that the Dalish don't view magic as a corrupting influence, merely as a natural part of the world. Therefore, they appear to view magic with healthy respect and caution rather than dogmatic suppression and fear like Andrastians do. And the Dalish viewpoint of magic didn't result in a continent-spanning war that brought their civilization and system of faith to the brink of destruction. Which makes the "three mage" rule retcon and other slaps in the face to the Dalish all the more obvious as intentional or unintentional incidents of black-washing.

 

 

 

Your entire post is excellent and spot on but there's something I'd like to add to this; after adding the 3 Mages rule supposedly because of the risk of possession BW introduces the Avvar, a human clan with free mages and seemingly no restriction on mage numbers who learn magic by voluntarily being possessed. 

 

DAI tears down the Dalish and throws out logic and lore to to it. 

[Ieldra]

@ShadowLordXII, Bayonet Hipshot:

 

I don't think there is favoritism towards the Chantry. Its flaws are obvious and often on-screen. In fact, the whole plot of Jaws of Hakkon reveals such an unprecedented level of hypocrisy and falsification of history, that any claim of favoritism is shaky at best. The retcons mentioned are made for plot convenience, not to favor the Chantry, and even if that is an additional outcome, it's easily countered by other facts like the above.

 

However, there is clear favoritism for Andrastianism as a religion. While the practices of the Chantry are questioned, the fundamental precepts of Andrastianism are supported throughout all stories told and by basically everyone with influence who isn't allied with the villains. Andrastian beliefs - as opposed to those of the elves, the qunari and the avvar - are never questioned except by the villains. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

What about Morrigan?

[Gervaise]

Morrigan questions Andrastrian beliefs but like the Dalish, the Avaar and the Rivaini, she is portrayed as an outsider, of whom those who follow the Andrastrian faith are on the whole deeply suspicious.   Celene tolerates her because of her fascination with magic and Morrigan was likely careful enough not to voice aloud to the Orlesian Court her true opinion of their faith.   She does so to the Inquisitor because she knows she is useful to them, so they are unlikely to move against her whilst Corypheus is a threat.   It is noticeable that she departs immediately after, not even participating in the celebration feast.  

 

I caught on pretty early in DAO that the Chantry was not necessarily interpreting the words of Andraste as she intended.    In DA2 my Hawkes tended to revere Andraste but not the Chantry.   However, I never really thought to question the history given in the Chant.    Then I read the source books and also the codices in DAI.   What puzzled me was why educated people weren't more sceptical of the history of Andraste and questioning if anything in the Chant is genuine?    They put words in the mouth of my elves, stating that we had got our history wrong, when in fact we had got so much of it right, yet they never did the same for a human Andrastrian.   The most you were allowed to do was state you weren't the Herald, never outright question the faith that has determined policy on so many things for the last 800 years.    You can headcanon whatever you want but that is not the same as questioning it in the dialogue given.  

 

On the question of the Dalish belief system based on the Creators.    Suddenly they are given a new title, Evanuris, and a character assassination based largely on the evidence on one person, who is a hostile witness and looked upon by the Dalish as unreliable.    It is clearly implied that we should believe everything he states about them and thus the Evnauris are both tyrants and guilty as charged of the death of Mythal.   Why aren't we allowed to questions his assertions more?   Why aren't we allowed to ask why he seemed happy enough to accept the status quo until the death of Mythal?   Why aren't we allowed to ask for a bit more detail concerning the event that apparently turned him against them?     This is particularly true of Lavellan.   When someone is trying to undermine your entire belief system, you'd surely be a bit more willing to challenge his assertions than simply roll over and surrender?

 

Where is the Solas equivalent against the Andrastrian faith?    Where is the figure from the past who suggests that perhaps Andraste was a warmonger and Maferath potentially saved thousands of lives by halting the crusade when he did?    Where is the person stating that the location of the Valarian Fields must be wrong because she never got further north than Nevarra?   Where is the person questioning whether the voice from the Fade was the Creator of the Universe at all?    What about all those verses in the Chant that scholars have shown belong to an earlier traditions and likely multiple faiths and races?   When they do this in game, then you have an equivalence in the treatment of faith.

[SgtSteel91]

Or become the founder of a new Andrastian Faith that's closer to Andraste's teachings in practice and writing than the Chantry itself.

You may not be able to do exactly this but I think you can do something very similar to this by getting Leliana elected as the new Divine and then turning the Inquisition into her honor guard. She basically has the same critical view of the Chantry and tries to correct all of the corruption in it.

[IHaveReturned1999]

When I talk to Cassandra about disbanding The Chantry she automatically stated it was a horrible idea, and Leliana told me that people are sheep and they need to follow. That's because no one want to take responsibility to look inside themselves to fix what's wrong with them. That's why people obey willingly, that's why they don't question, and they're lazy to change themselves as people so they want to worship, and look for this "Maker" to fix everything and not want to take responsibility. Huh Haytham was right about it after all.

[Mlady]

If this was already mentioned I apologize. I am only replying to the OP. What I'm actually curious about is how did what Solas did end up part of Andraste's story about the Maker? The Maker created the Veil they say, yet it was Solas who did it. I think in the end we will find out that Andrastian's are following a story that is partly connected to the Creators.

[Gervaise]

Two reasons for this really.   Firstly, the Chant is only edited highlights of what Andraste actually said.    Drakon and the first Divine decided what went in and what was left out, so for all we know she may have mentioned dwarves, elves, Evanuris the creation of the Veil, or whatever, but it didn't suit their narrative, so it was omitted.

 

Secondly, apart from some early verses about creation, the Chant is mostly focussed on human history.    In order words, much of what is in there is post-Veil.    Even the nature of spirits as outlined in the Chant is based on what they are post-Veil rather than what they were pre-Veil, as evidenced by the memories in the Library.  

 

This doesn't necessarily mean there is no Creator god.   Even Dalish myths have the earth and the sun existing before any of their gods.   Nor does it necessarily mean that Andraste got things wrong, since as I say above, we have no way of knowing how much the Chantry subsequently omitted from her words.    What it does mean is that the Chant and the Chantry have serious omissions from their teaching and this is why, if they were going to be treated equally, someone in game ought to be pointing out that fact.    

[Mlady]

Two reasons for this really.   Firstly, the Chant is only edited highlights of what Andraste actually said.    Drakon and the first Divine decided what went in and what was left out, so for all we know she may have mentioned dwarves, elves, Evanuris the creation of the Veil, or whatever, but it didn't suit their narrative, so it was omitted.

 

Secondly, apart from some early verses about creation, the Chant is mostly focussed on human history.    In order words, much of what is in there is post-Veil.    Even the nature of spirits as outlined in the Chant is based on what they are post-Veil rather than what they were pre-Veil, as evidenced by the memories in the Library.  

 

This doesn't necessarily mean there is no Creator god.   Even Dalish myths have the earth and the sun existing before any of their gods.   Nor does it necessarily mean that Andraste got things wrong, since as I say above, we have no way of knowing how much the Chantry subsequently omitted from her words.    What it does mean is that the Chant and the Chantry have serious omissions from their teaching and this is why, if they were going to be treated equally, someone in game ought to be pointing out that fact.    

 

I'm starting to think Andraste somehow connected with Mythal if she knew of things no one else did. They even wear the same sort of crown. Mythal did say she loved to nudge history along. That's why she saves the HOF and Hawke, knowing they are needed in the future. Also why she wanted Morrigan to do the DR too. She needed the OG's power and was planning to possibly stop Solas from tearing the Veil down, but he beat her to it with his trickery.

 

I would love in DA4 to find out things in Tevinter that makes the Chant and what really happened start to connect and maybe we learn of things the Chantry was hiding from the people.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

On the question of the Dalish belief system based on the Creators.    Suddenly they are given a new title, Evanuris, and a character assassination based largely on the evidence on one person, who is a hostile witness and looked upon by the Dalish as unreliable.    It is clearly implied that we should believe everything he states about them and thus the Evnauris are both tyrants and guilty as charged of the death of Mythal.   Why aren't we allowed to questions his assertions more?   Why aren't we allowed to ask why he seemed happy enough to accept the status quo until the death of Mythal?   Why aren't we allowed to ask for a bit more detail concerning the event that apparently turned him against them?     This is particularly true of Lavellan.   When someone is trying to undermine your entire belief system, you'd surely be a bit more willing to challenge his assertions than simply roll over and surrender?

 

You don't learn the evil of the Evanruis just from Solas, you learn it from the records in the Sanctuary of the Dread Wolf and the Fade Library. There is already corroborating evidence by the time you meet him again.

 

 

Where is the Solas equivalent against the Andrastrian faith?    Where is the figure from the past who suggests that perhaps Andraste was a warmonger and Maferath potentially saved thousands of lives by halting the crusade when he did?    Where is the person stating that the location of the Valarian Fields must be wrong because she never got further north than Nevarra?   Where is the person questioning whether the voice from the Fade was the Creator of the Universe at all?    What about all those verses in the Chant that scholars have shown belong to an earlier traditions and likely multiple faiths and races?   When they do this in game, then you have an equivalence in the treatment of faith.

 

I really wasn't happy with what they did to the elven gods, but I really don't see the necessity in repeating the process for all the other faiths too. If one religion is is revealed to be false, Bioware should write them all as false? We'll have to wait and see, of course, but maybe having a Solas type figure discredit Andrastianism is just not the direction they wanted to go in with the Chantry.

[cimerians412]

I haven't read the entire thread but the basic gist is favoritism? There is none, its the way the writer chooses to create his world. If he chooses humans to favor Andraste over other gods so be it. This goes back to literary works like the ones from Robert E. Howard and even the Dungeons & Dragons game where major deities are dominant over a "world" than others based on a dominant race, human or demi-human. Sometimes one, sometimes more than one. 

 

Humans, elves and dwarves can have different gods, even amongst themselves or favor one of them. Again some writers decide there's a dominant race (like humans or maybe elves) which can mean one dominant god with several lesser gods etc.

 

As far as flaws, go. A person of faith in general will rarely view that his deity has "flaws" that's why its called faith...or blind faith.  An old AD&D book called Deities & Demigods is a nice book to read that gets into this in great detail and is still IMO a nice book for creating a game world's religions and deities. 

 

Not sure what the problem is. Andraste can be considered a "good" god. Not neutral, not evil. Probably Lawful-Good (see alignments in D&D). Followers of Andraste will probably have the same alignment as her...and will come with the same "flaws" the god has. 

 

Dragon Age, as many fantasy RPG's are, are derived from that old paper and pencil game. It's nothing more than that. I just don't see a problem at all with the way they are writing their religions and lore. 

[Gervaise]

The Sanctuary of the Dread Wolf is no different to the Dread Wolf himself when it comes to unbiased witnesses.   They were rebels against the system.   People who didn't like the system fled to them.   That is all.    Solas claims the vallaslin were slave markings.    No one else confirms this, apart from Corypheus and he could have got his information from the Orb of Fen'Harel.   Abelas has vallaslin.   Nothing suggests that he didn't choose to serve Mythal, rather than an unwilling slave.   Still, if they are the markings of slaves, then Mythal had slaves.  He claims she cared for her people, so were they slaves or not?   I think that when he says slaves, he really means worshippers.  To him, giving unswerving devotion to one of the Evanuris is having a slave mindset.

 

In the Library we are shown occasions when large numbers of elves seem to be working on some sort of project.   Just because they are working together in this way doesn't necessarily imply slavery.   Even the entry about the statue to Elgar'nan calls them variously servants and then slaves. Whose memory was this?

 

When Elgar'nan and Falon'Din have a dispute they settle it with champions, rather than wage war and countless lives.   They also abide by the outcome (unlike Celene and Gaspard).   This seems a rather civilised way of conducting themselves compared with most of the modern rulers of Thedas.   Elgar'nan banishes the Forbidden Ones because they failed to assist during a time of need.   Again, he simply tells them they are unwelcome in their lands, nothing more.

 

We are also shown scenes of peaceful learning, such as the amphitheatre with the spirit lecturer.   Another image of serenity shows elves walking along paths in a magical city.   "The scene hums with quiet talk and contentment".     Whose memories are these?

 

I'm not saying there weren't areas with slums and squalor, of mistreatment and abuse, but we aren't shown them.    Even Felassan only says there were servants, just as in Orlais and that the make-up of society wasn't that different.     So if the Evanuris were worthy of being locked away, so are all the rulers in Thedas.   Yet we are obliged to defend them.   Not only that but this wonderful world that he wants to restore was built under the rule of the Evanuris.   

 

The only concrete example of a tyrant was the story of Falon'Din and who told that?  Solas.   The other gods didn't approve and finally Mythal took action against him.   Why didn't she act sooner?    Again, I feel there is something missing in his recounting of the tale.    Could Falon'Din have been suffering a similar sort of madness to Andruil?

 

I just hate being led by the nose and being told what to think, without being provided with sufficient evidence.  I wouldn't convict anyone on the basis of Solas' testimony and that of his followers alone, particularly when the accused aren't even permitted to defend themselves.   Yet that is what we are being asked to do.   The abuses I have read about and witnessed in modern Thedas are far worse than anything that attributed to the Creators.   

 

Yet we are forced to maintain these corrupt systems of governance that pay only lip service to the morality set out by their prophet on behalf of their god.     The Dalish claim that the customs they live by were given to them by their gods.   They are positive values of loyalty to family and looking after all members of the community, of working together for the benefit of the clan and having respect for the natural world.   If these didn't come from their gods, it is rather ironic really that they abide by an imagined moral code of their gods, whereas the Andrastrians totally ignore the moral code of a god they claim to be real.

[Beerfish]

LOL  Daish magic system better than the Chantry's

 

How many dalish clans got totally wiped out because their keepers dabbled with, consorted with or played around with demons?  I lost count at about 3 of them.  But a least their magic users were free!  yay!  They all died horribly with smiles on their faces.

[animedreamer]

Well written and thought out. Hopefully we will get some revelations in the next game.

The only revelation i want in the next game is that it concludes with humans jumping off a cliff, and the world is restored to is high magic fantasy setting as Solas has envisioned. 

[Inkvisiittori]

LOL  Daish magic system better than the Chantry's

 

How many dalish clans got totally wiped out because their keepers dabbled with, consorted with or played around with demons?  I lost count at about 3 of them.  But a least their magic users were free!  yay!  They all died horribly with smiles on their faces.

 

Ferelden's Circle was overrun with bloodmages and abominations... they were everywhere in Kirkwall... one circle mage blew up Kirkwall's Chantry killing thousands after becoming possessed and mad because of all the abuse of power he had witnessed. Then there was the mage-templar rebellion with both apostates and rogue templars killing anyone who got in their way... how is that any better?

[Vit246]

LOL  Daish magic system better than the Chantry's

 

How many dalish clans got totally wiped out because their keepers dabbled with, consorted with or played around with demons?  I lost count at about 3 of them.  But a least their magic users were free!  yay!  They all died horribly with smiles on their faces.

 

Don't be vague and name those 3. 

[Iakus]

@ShadowLordXII, Bayonet Hipshot:

 

I don't think there is favoritism towards the Chantry. Its flaws are obvious and often on-screen. In fact, the whole plot of Jaws of Hakkon reveals such an unprecedented level of hypocrisy and falsification of history, that any claim of favoritism is shaky at best. The retcons mentioned are made for plot convenience, not to favor the Chantry, and even if that is an additional outcome, it's easily countered by other facts like the above.

 

However, there is clear favoritism for Andrastianism as a religion. While the practices of the Chantry are questioned, the fundamental precepts of Andrastianism are supported throughout all stories told and by basically everyone with influence who isn't allied with the villains. Andrastian beliefs - as opposed to those of the elves, the qunari and the avvar - are never questioned except by the villains. 

 

Well, when you get down to it, the lands DAI take place in are dominated by humans who follow the southern Chantry.  And so that is going to be the dominant religion shown in the game.  Yet even there we find people who believe in different ways.

 

We've got the devout Cassandra who believes the Chantry has lost it's way

We have the casual believer Sera who's terrified of the stories being "really real"

We have the non-religious believer Dorian 

We have Varric, who protestations to the side, has quietly started believing in the Maker in his own way.

 

And in addition, the mere existence of Coryphious paradoxically calls into question one of the biggest precepts of the Chantry:  That the magisters blackened the Golden CIty, and the Maker cursed them and cast them out.  

 

This rocks the Chantry's history as much as Abelas's statements on the true fall of Arlathan.  Or the existence of Titans to the dwarves.  It shows that people don't know nearly as much about their own history as they thought

[animedreamer]

Well, when you get down to it, the lands DAI take place in are dominated by humans who follow the southern Chantry.  And so that is going to be the dominant religion shown in the game.  Yet even there we find people who believe in different ways.

 

We've got the devout Cassandra who believes the Chantry has lost it's way

We have the casual believer Sera who's terrified of the stories being "really real"

We have the non-religious believer Dorian 

We have Varric, who protestations to the side, has quietly started believing in the Maker in his own way.

 

And in addition, the mere existence of Coryphious paradoxically calls into question one of the biggest precepts of the Chantry:  That the magisters blackened the Golden CIty, and the Maker cursed them and cast them out.  

 

This rocks the Chantry's history as much as Abelas's statements on the true fall of Arlathan.  Or the existence of Titans to the dwarves.  It shows that people don't know nearly as much about their own history as they thought

 

Even Solas gives credence that the Maker might exist in a conversation with Cassandra.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Sanctuary of the Dread Wolf is no different to the Dread Wolf himself when it comes to unbiased witnesses.   They were rebels against the system.   People who didn't like the system fled to them.   That is all.    Solas claims the vallaslin were slave markings.    No one else confirms this, apart from Corypheus and he could have got his information from the Orb of Fen'Harel.   Abelas has vallaslin.   Nothing suggests that he didn't choose to serve Mythal, rather than an unwilling slave.   Still, if they are the markings of slaves, then Mythal had slaves.  He claims she cared for her people, so were they slaves or not?   I think that when he says slaves, he really means worshippers.  To him, giving unswerving devotion to one of the Evanuris is having a slave mindset.

 

In the Library we are shown occasions when large numbers of elves seem to be working on some sort of project.   Just because they are working together in this way doesn't necessarily imply slavery.   Even the entry about the statue to Elgar'nan calls them variously servants and then slaves. Whose memory was this?

 

When Elgar'nan and Falon'Din have a dispute they settle it with champions, rather than wage war and countless lives.   They also abide by the outcome (unlike Celene and Gaspard).   This seems a rather civilised way of conducting themselves compared with most of the modern rulers of Thedas.   Elgar'nan banishes the Forbidden Ones because they failed to assist during a time of need.   Again, he simply tells them they are unwelcome in their lands, nothing more.

 

We are also shown scenes of peaceful learning, such as the amphitheatre with the spirit lecturer.   Another image of serenity shows elves walking along paths in a magical city.   "The scene hums with quiet talk and contentment".     Whose memories are these?

 

I'm not saying there weren't areas with slums and squalor, of mistreatment and abuse, but we aren't shown them.    Even Felassan only says there were servants, just as in Orlais and that the make-up of society wasn't that different.     So if the Evanuris were worthy of being locked away, so are all the rulers in Thedas.   Yet we are obliged to defend them.   Not only that but this wonderful world that he wants to restore was built under the rule of the Evanuris.   

 

The only concrete example of a tyrant was the story of Falon'Din and who told that?  Solas.   The other gods didn't approve and finally Mythal took action against him.   Why didn't she act sooner?    Again, I feel there is something missing in his recounting of the tale.    Could Falon'Din have been suffering a similar sort of madness to Andruil?

 

I just hate being led by the nose and being told what to think, without being provided with sufficient evidence.  I wouldn't convict anyone on the basis of Solas' testimony and that of his followers alone, particularly when the accused aren't even permitted to defend themselves.   Yet that is what we are being asked to do.   The abuses I have read about and witnessed in modern Thedas are far worse than anything that attributed to the Creators.   

 

Yet we are forced to maintain these corrupt systems of governance that pay only lip service to the morality set out by their prophet on behalf of their god.     The Dalish claim that the customs they live by were given to them by their gods.   They are positive values of loyalty to family and looking after all members of the community, of working together for the benefit of the clan and having respect for the natural world.   If these didn't come from their gods, it is rather ironic really that they abide by an imagined moral code of their gods, whereas the Andrastrians totally ignore the moral code of a god they claim to be real.

 

Before Inquisition came out, I was always one to defend the idea that since Felessan doesn't call the slaves, so we don't really have evidence to suggest that they were. However, Inquisition and Trespasser are both pretty clear that they were slaves. So I think the implication was that Felessan was just comparing The Elvhenan to Orlais as a shorthand for Briala to explain that it was an awful place, because it's the example she was most familiar with. And the reality was that it was far worse. 

 

You seem to be going through an awful lot of lengths and using a lot of fanon speculation to argue that maybe the slavery or oppression wasn't so bad back when the elven empire did it. The memory of the slaves building a statue is unambiguous. It described thousands upon thousands of "slaves" building a monument to the vanity of Elgar'nan in a single afternoon. I really don't see any other way to interpret that. The fact that they are called slaves and servants in the same paragraph is not a contradiction. And I don't think the fact that the author isn't named undermine's the implication of what he or she was witnessing either. If you saw countless people with slave brands carving a giant lump of rock in the image of their king in any human nation of Thedas, would you wonder if they were willing participants? 

 

Solas certainly never seems to conflate the notion of slaves and worshipers in any other circumstances. The reason he offers to remove Lavellan's vallaslin is that he associates them with cruelty from back in his day. That same word is used in The Sanctuary of the Dread Wolf and it matches Felessan's description of ancient elven nobles.

 

Would you actually suggest that records left by slave rebellions in Tevinter are biased and not reliable evidence of slavery in the Imperium? Would you say that the perspectives of elves from Briala's rebellion are not good evidence of how badly elves are treated in Orlais?

 

Solas isn't the author of all the records we find and experience in the Sanctuary of the Dread Wolf, even fact he says they glorying him too much.

 

Falon'din and Elgar'nan have their champions duel to the death at the suggestion of Mythal. If it wasn't for her, they would have gone to war over an argument. 

 

Solas description of Falon'din was specifically that he was driven by vanity, not that he had gone mad. And that matches with what we learn about the arrogance of the Evanuris in Trespasser, and even in the Temple of Mythal. I suspect many of those stories aren't meant to be taken at face value, but it suggests that Andruil was cruel enough to kill people for sport even before her "maddness." And Mythal only really intervened to stop Andruil because the other Evanuris were worried.

 

Even the Qunari seem to conclude from the records left behind that the Evanuris were many times worse than the bas of Thedas, and they make no secret of how much they despise the human kings and queens.

 

Plus, at the end of the day, players sort of have to decide from a meta perspective what the game seems to suggest is true. And I think it is unlikely that the entire character of Solas is meant to be nothing but one big deception, especially with how much seems to corroborate his story. I'm not suggesting he's unbiased or completely knowledgeable about everything, but he does seem to be easily our best source on the Ancient Elves.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Don't be vague and name those 3. 

Zathrian's clan in Dragon Age: Origin's 

Marathari's clan in Dragon Age 2

The clan in Dragon Age: The Masked Empire

 

Just a guess.