Who said it first is irrelevant.
The Elders of the Dalish also condemn his actions. This was not done, as some have suggested, simply because he was unsuccessful. It was done because they saw his actions as a "crime against nature". It went way beyond what would be justified by the natural Dalish desire for revenge.
They also considered what might be the mind set of someone who lived for that amount of time (at least 3 centuries) having gained immortality through hatred. They suggest that his mind may have become more myopic or spirit like in its focus and consequently he may have lost the ability to empathise with those around him.
It is interesting that their final reflections might be just as pertinent to Solas as they were to Zathrian:
"It can be argued that an immortal would have to be distant, or eventually all it would know is loss. What would our world look like to such a creature? What actions would they be capable of when everything except themselves is fleeting and therefore of little relevance to eternity?"
That's not compromise, that's complete cultural surrender.
Since when was 'submission to elven mages' the complete cultural summation of the Dalish, let alone a good aspect of their culture?
Ignore, of course, that I threw out a number of potential options the Dalish could play a change to the Keeper system, some of which didn't even contest the continued role of mage-rulers.
You're asking the Dalish to give up one of their few cultural traditions all clans we've seen so far have in common - and what does the other side give for that?
Depending on what the compromise is on the Chantry side? Potentially a lot.
No longer being considered dangerous apostate harborers is the most significant, and with that comes thus no longer needing to be nomadic to escape from Chantry enforcers coming after the un-regulated mages. No longer being nomadic means they can create settlements. With settlements come transition from subsistence living to societal development: stable population bases, record repositories to keep and preserve lore beyond suspect oral tradition, and enduring political relations and (and thus alliances) with local interest groups to build political allies and advocates.
And that's just if the Templars (or whatever their re-named equivalent post-Inquisition) mage-security-wing of the Chantry are satisfied with whatever accomodation are done. Which depending on the deal, doesn't even necessarily necessitate an end to mage-keepers if other compromises are made- consider the proposal of a Templar-affiliated observor who's role is to watch and observe for maleficar tendencies, which will reduce ignorance and misinformation of what the Dalish mages actually do.
If reconciliation with the Chantry as a whole is achieved by changing mage supremacist leadership philosophy- and considering that one of the historic fears of Southern Thedas is the fear of mage rulers lording over mundanes, the Keeper system as-is doesn't help reassure any political partner- a whole world of political options for the good of the Dalish starts to open up.
International legitimization. Political normalization. Even the creation of a Dalish polity that can actually claim to represent at least some regional Dalish, and both negotiate and be negotiated with to raise grievences and moderate tensions with the Chantry and Chantry-deferring countrires. One of the best ways the Dalish could slow or stop their cultural dissentigration is to re-create a unified polity, and the best way they can take an actual leadership role for city elves across Thedas is if someone has the relations and the influence with the Chantry to bring their attention to city-elf issues as something other than a strictly national concern. The only polity with international standing that they could hope to piggy-back that sort of reach off of is the Chantry itself- and better relations with the Chantry would benefit Dalish clans wherever the Chantry has influence, which is to say almost everywhere that matters.
Make no mistake, and don't straw-man me as if I'm saying simply changing the Keeper system is sufficient. It's not, and there are a lot of other issues to be addressed. But what the Chantry might offer will, of course, depend on what the Dalish offer in-turn. Changes to the keeper system- a system that doesn't actually select the best or most knowledgeable or most lore-cogninant elfs to the role of cultural leader for merry bands of cultural preservationists- is something that is entirely in the Dalish's power to change, and has significant influences on their relations with the most necessary institution for rapprochement.
When negotiating, offers need to be something you can deliver and something the other side wants. Political changes to their leadership caste is something the Dalish can do without any outside help. Mage policy is also one of the very few things the Dalish can offer that the humans actually want.
If not that, what would you offer as a compromise that might entice the Chantry to the negotiating table?
(Besides such low-hanging fruit as, say, allowing Andrastian missionaries to visit the tribes.That might be good for the Chantry, but it doesn't do much for the Kingdoms.)
Did Drakon offer any indication that this was not merely biding his time? We know for a fact that he launched aggressive campaigns that conquered much of Thedas including modern-day Ferelden, much of the Free Marches, Nevarra and the Anderfels. In fact, its inferred that Drakon's ambitions were confounded by the Dales' isolationism. Furthermore, Drakon's son, Kordillus Drakon II, was of a clearly different opinion despite his father's friendship with Inquisitor Ameridan.
War was inevitable when Chantry and Orlesian beliefs/ambitions contradict any notion of the Dales being able to exist as it's own culture and religion. Period. Tensions would not have escalated to the point of invasion and war if the Dales were left alone. I'm not condoning the Invasion and in hindsight, it looks like the elves overextended themselves. I'm merely pointing out the truth that the fuel behind the war had been building for years and most of that fuel was put their by Chantry/Orlais breathing down the Dales' back.
And considering that the elves of the Dales just got out from hundreds of years of slavery and cultural deprivation after their first homeland was wiped out by aggressive human neighbors (Tevinter), I can't blame the Dales for not backing down and trying to keep history from repeating itself.
For all we know, the Dales simply had an advantage in momentum and winning the right battles up until the Exalted March counterattack took the tide away from them. There's no proof that the Orlesians were helplessly caught off guard and innocent of aggressive intent. Simply that the Elves were initially winning the war for a time.
Germany still exists today and it's people were not displaced and stripped of their culture despite a brutal occupation by Russia. The German people have not been rendered down into wandering exiles or second-class citizens scattered across the world in perpetual poverty.
There is no reason to think he was simply biding his time, only sending Ameridan to stave them off til he was ready. He did not invade them before the Blight and he certainly wasn't in a position to do so during it.
All that you are saying can ultimately be boiled down to "the Orlesians deserved it because they were expansionists and woud have attacked the Dales eventually" while also morally dubious its simply not true that the Orlesians were pressing to invade, as I've explained. If the elves destroyed all those armies Orlais had on the border then its unfathomable how they managed to turn the war around, and if they simply had the resources to stomach such losses than the Elven attack was a suicidal endeavor from the start.
As it stands the only conclusion I am comfortable with reaching is that the Orlesians were unprepared for the war, indicating they were not preparing any attack on the Dales. It is what fits with the evidence we have and reasoning. Attempting to shift the blame for the war to the invaded party for what they might have done in the future and did a century or longer in the past is morally indefensible.
Can you please explain why anyone, much less the Dalish, should submit to the Chantry? Even if I am willing to accept that my religion is flawed because those I thought to be gods were really just highly powered, tyrant mages, why should that make the Chantry religion any more valid to me? As it is, having been able to observe and study the Chantry at close hand, my Lavellan is even less inclined to accept their governance, because it seems just as big a fantasy as his own cultural stories. Andraste and Shartan were real people but their genuine history has been all but obscured by the Chant of Drakon.
I would be quite willing to work with a friendly secular power, just as my clan did in Wycome but there is no way I am gong to compromise my integrity by acknowledging the Chantry as anything other than a false religion. It is the invention of Drakon. In the north it was the invention of Hessarian. I'll happily acknowledge the Maker but not the Chantry. I am quite prepared to incorporate the morality of the Maker in the running of the state so long as everyone else does the same. This is something that they have patently failed to do with regard to anything but the attitude to magic and even that stance comes from a false interpretation of the words of Andraste. The conduct of the Chevaliers and the Orlesian Game is an affront to the Maker. The conduct of the Magisters is an affront to the Maker. The conduct of the Crows is an affront to the Maker (yet that organisation was originally started by Chantry clerics). The Chantry have no real secular power and I fail to see how they are the unifying force that Josephine claimed them to be. It is a myth and I want no part of it.
let me put this very clearly so Dean doesn't need to waster her own time on it
Compromise is not submission.
Compromise? Lying you mean, just as they did about the Herald of Andraste. Compromising your beliefs is submission. I believe the Chantry is a false religion and a big fat lie. As such I do not acknowledge their authority. It is about time someone stood up to them particularly when every secular power only gives lip service to the morality in the Chant. Incidentally the Maker doesn't like liars.
Compromise? Lying you mean, just as they did about the Herald of Andraste. Compromising your beliefs is submission. I believe the Chantry is a false religion and a big fat lie. As such I do not acknowledge their authority. It is about time someone stood up to them particularly when every secular power only gives lip service to the morality in the Chant. Incidentally the Maker doesn't like liars.
careful you don't cut yourself on all that edge
Worrying about the Keeper system is putting the cart well before the horse, but further discussion on this topic probably belongs in the Arlathvhen thread.
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?
Well 1st of all I never said it was better, I was responding to previous posters saying the Dalish system was better.
And 2nd of all it could be argued that the reason for all of the problems you mentioned was because the chantry Templar over sight became slack, before becoming too harsh.
He's absolutely a madman. Apart from the fact that he's willing to risk dooming Ferelden for the sake of sating his vengeance by killing the only two Grey Wardens in Fereldan, he's maliciously cursed generations of innocents as a result of his bloodlust. It's hard to imagine something worse than doesn't cross into the realm of outright caricature.
From Stalin's point of view, the mass murder of millions is A-OK. From the point of view of someone unfortunately afflicted with mental illness, I might be the King of England. Ridiculous subjective perception doesn't mean anything. It's why crimes don't depend on the force of how justified you feel you are in committing them.
And I explain the lie: Zathrian's perpetuating a racist myth about the source of elven immortality. There's no reason or purpose for him to lie - it just feeds his racism. And it's contrary to his duties as a keeper, at least if we see them as actually preserving the truth of the history of the elvhen and recovery of lost knowledge from Elvhenan.
Why should Zathrian care for Ferelden? Their misfortune is not his problem. He could move his clan to somewhere else if darkspawn became a problem for them. He only agreed to help the Warden because he helped his clan against the werewolves.
So do you claim that Zathrian is the one who told elves humans are responsible for their mortality? You are wrong that myth was born when they first met humans before Tevinter slaved elves and destroyed what remained of Arlathan, long before Zathrian was even born.
It's actually super relevant, as sources are relevant to interpretation. I can't believe I'm typing this, but the point this homicidal maniac was making was that you can justify mass slaughter easily because it's so conceptually alien. I honestly don't understand what you think you're proving with this quote.
It's subjective: what someone allegedly meant doesn't define how I interpret the words.
*sigh*
Zathrian was driven by grief and anger and he knew what he was doing and what he had to really do to put an end to it provided he gets persuaded to see the light. And the clan doesn't have to die.
Marethari's clan dies because they were stupidly enraged and Hawke killed them all. The demon pretty much did jack shite. And the clan still doesn't have to die.
The clan in TME was such a ridiculous strawman I frankly refuse to acknowledge it.
You can't just make a blanket statement without context.
Apparently no Zathrian did not know what he was doing or that whole story arc would not have appeared. Grief and anger are good excuses? Gee that excuse is never afforded to Meredith for some reason.
No fooling with a demons and the clan has no problems at all and Hawke never has to do a thing.
All I can say about the last point is LOLOLOLOL.
Ridiculous dodging and justifying on your part. If you want to use these flimsy arguments then apply the same logic to the actions of the templars.
(A lot of people have no clue what strawman means it seems.)
It's subjective: what someone allegedly meant doesn't define how I interpret the words.
"sure I'm using a Stalin quote but it doesn't mean what he intended cause muh interpretation"
*laments how widespread "death of the author" has become*
Can you please explain why anyone, much less the Dalish, should submit to the Chantry?
Even if I am willing to accept that my religion is flawed because those I thought to be gods were really just highly powered, tyrant mages, why should that make the Chantry religion any more valid to me?
It is about time someone stood up to them particularly when every secular power only gives lip service to the morality in the Chant.
Why should Zathrian care for Ferelden? Their misfortune is not his problem. He could move his clan to somewhere else if darkspawn became a problem for them.
He only agreed to help the Warden because he helped his clan against the werewolves.
Until the darkspawn spread everywhere else and tainted everything.
There are Grey Warden's outside of Ferelden.
No, he agreed to help the Warden because the Warden had enforceable treaties promising such aid. But just like every other faction w/ whom the GW had treaties, the Warden had to first solve their current problems to enable them to send aid.
Ah, yes, I forgot all about the treaties. I wonder when the dalish signed them? Before their kingdom was taken from them, perhaps? Still, there are many instances where nations have left others without aid in the times of Blight...
There are Grey Warden's outside of Ferelden.
And? You think Zathrian's clan is going to be welcomed wherever they may roam?
The dalish are not welcome anywhere, yet they have clans all over Thedas. Clan Sabrae travelled from Ferelden to the Free Marches. They never stay in one place forever.
As more and more land becomes tainted, less and less land is available for anyone to inhabit. The longer a blight goes on, the bigger the horde becomes, the fewer people survive to fight it, etc. It benefits everyone - including roaming dalish clans - to end the blight asap
Orlais has warden's and they already know about the Blight so they are prepared. Once Denerim falls Orlais can send its troops to occupy the land and free the peasants (that are still alive by that point, that is) from the darkspawn.
Why should Zathrian care for Ferelden? Their misfortune is not his problem. He could move his clan to somewhere else if darkspawn became a problem for them. He only agreed to help the Warden because he helped his clan against the werewolves.
So do you claim that Zathrian is the one who told elves humans are responsible for their mortality? You are wrong that myth was born when they first met humans before Tevinter slaved elves and destroyed what remained of Arlathan, long before Zathrian was even born.
It's subjective: what someone allegedly meant doesn't define how I interpret the words.
If not that, what would you offer as a compromise that might entice the Chantry to the negotiating table?
Your suggestions are based on the implicit assumption that the Chantry's ideology is rightfully dominant. That I contest. To agree to the Dalish mages having to go to the Circle, for instance, that's like - to use a current example - to give in to Turkey's demand to extradite supposed members of the Gülen movement on their say-so, with no evidence that they've done anything wrong. It would go completely against fundamental aspects of the Dalish culture.
Any compromise that deserves the name has to treat the two cultures as equally valid, to start with (not that I think either one is particularly worth defending, but that's a different story). To agree to stop killing or imprisoning each other would be a good first step, along with visiting rights into the other's territory (not by armies, of course) in order to get to know each other better. Cultural contact, that would be the way to co-existence. The implicit assumption of superiority has to stop, on *both* sides.
Agreeing to cultural contact would be a big step for the Dalish given their present stance, and especially since they're the less powerful culture. The other side has to recognize that. What comes of that, who knows? Maybe the Dalish will have to stay in remote regions in the end, maybe not, but I see no justification for a demand to submit to Chantry rules regarding mages, except perhaps for the surplus mages who would otherwise be cast out. As for their system of rulership, it isn't any worse than any other system on Thedas. That you change how you select your rulers as demanded by someone else is actually a most significant indication of submission. It's about the last thing any culture would agree to.
I'm going to approach this differently. Let's pretend I agree. What's your interpretation of Stalin's quote about mass murder? How does it help your argument? How does it even tie into your argument? It's a quote about desensitization.
I explained that in page 24 in my answer to KaiserShep. Thinking about who said those words first will just distract you from the point I was trying to make.
Why should Zathrian care for Ferelden? Their misfortune is not his problem. He could move his clan to somewhere else if darkspawn became a problem for them. He only agreed to help the Warden because he helped his clan against the werewolves.
So do you claim that Zathrian is the one who told elves humans are responsible for their mortality? You are wrong that myth was born when they first met humans before Tevinter slaved elves and destroyed what remained of Arlathan, long before Zathrian was even born.
Retour en haut