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.
Lol, what. But how should anyone interpret that response other than "It's ok because there are too many victims to remember"? That's like saying that it's worse to shoot one person in a back alley than to go to an office building and mow down random people.
Well I just meant that Zathrian is a more symphathetic character because we get to really know him and his story, so when he dies it's kind of sad... but those werewolves were just faceless enemy hoards that Zathrian had killed and that we killed ourselves, and maybe if there had been a chance to get to actually know them as anything other than just aggressive beasts, then maybe the choice between dalish vs werewolves and Zathrian vs Swiftrunner had been more difficult.
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.
Well I just meant that Zathrian is a more symphathetic character because we get to really know him and his story, so when he dies it's kind of sad... but those werewolves were just faceless enemy hoards that Zathrian had killed and that we killed ourselves, and maybe if there had been a chance to get to actually know them as anything other than just aggressive beasts, then maybe the choice between dalish vs werewolves and Zathrian vs Swiftrunner had been more difficult.
Depending on what the compromise is on the Chantry side? Potentially a lot.
No longer being considered dangerous apostate harborers is the most significant[...]
[snip long post]
If not that, what would you offer as a compromise that might entice the Chantry to the negotiating table?
I say avoid the Chantry altogether. More specifically the Southern Chantry. They themselves have habit of not being the best at negotiation. They have a pretty well defined idea of how mages should be managed, and are not exactly culturally sensitive to those who manage them differently.
Rivain is perhaps the primary instance where the Chantry was unwilling to compromise with local tradition. A Circle was put in to appease them, libraries stocked, mages sent, education underway. But the Chantry was all but mortified to learn that mages were allowed to leave the Cirlce on a regular basis, still allowed to visit their families, and train under local Seers. Even though the Rivaini populace was even willing to operate with the Templars and further their investigations instead of shunning them.
Now--and this is important context---the Rivaini people do practice arts concerning possession. It is part of their culture. It is understandable, and even commendable to a degree, that the Chantry was concerned with these practices. But according to certain (but not all) accounts, the Right of Annulment was more in response to mages continually participating in local freedoms/culture than they were possession.
But from my point of view the danger is clear. The Southern Chantry may not be willing to compromise, and may use whatever foothold they have in another culture to initiate a slaughter. Whatever hypothetical agreement the Dalish would have with the Circle/Chantry would be a tumultuous set of relations at best and an opening for a massacre at worst. I'd sooner have the Dalish form a compromise with the Avaar, the Mortalitasi, Orzamaar or even Tevinter before they got anywhere near Orlais or the Chantry.
A compromise can only work if both are willing to put in effort, and as it is, it is likely neither side will want to.
I don't mind favoritism of Andrastianism, after all, it is the largest religion in the known world.
However, I do mind the inability of our character to refuse it, to attack it, or to believe in a different God and argue against Andrastianism.
Honestly, that religion is boring. Their God, if he is even real and exists, is dead and inanimate, uninvolved in the affairs of the world and uncaring. Worshiping him is useless, no more than sniwelling at the feel of an abussive parent or spouse.
Compromise? Lying you mean, just as they did about the Herald of Andraste. Compromising your beliefs is submission.
If compromising your beliefs is submission, then the Dalish are about to be either become delusional or submit to a small thing called 'reality.' Dalish culture is built on long series of ignorant and objectively wrong falsehoods, starting with their religion and continuing to their history. Their belief in the mythic past doesn't make it true. If you wish to call compromise to reality a moral failure of submission, go ahead.
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.
So what? Whether you believe in the morality or moral authority of the Chantry or not is irrelevant to whether dealing with them can help the elves. The only authority you need to recognize- if you intend to help the Dalish that is- is that the Chantry and Andrastian nations are a fact of existence in Thedas.
They are not the ones of a trajectory of cultural collapse and outright eradication. They are not the ones who have no polity and get less and less alike every generation. They are not the ones whose existence depends on the tolerance of those they despise with historical vendettas that are largely unreciprocated.
The Chantry exists. Deny it if you want, but denying it doesn't help the Dalish one iota. Short of the end of the world, it will continue to exist- and the end of the world will eradicate the Dalish way of life just as thoroughly as any them. If the Dalish want to pretend to moral superiority and refuse to deal with the powers that be in hopes of outlasting the humans,
There are, by the way, two significant powers that stand up to the Chantry. The first is an enslaving tyranny of cultural chauvenists who have a long and ignoble history of doing far more to destroy the elven Culture than the Chantry ever has. The other is Tevinter. Neither of them will come out on top and be better for the elfy elves than co-existence with the Chantry.
Things I want to add to Dean's proposal:
Shifting Keepers into the roles the Avaar Mages play, spiritual/arcane advisors and making a generally elected Clan Chief based on how well they can manage and lead the entire clan (maybe the Keeper can be Chief if they prove to the whole clan they can effectively lead/manage them beyond "I'm a Mage and this was how our ancestors did it."
Cultural exchanges between the Dalish and Circle, have young Mages trained in their Dalish ways until young adult hood, then have them sent to Circle to share their knowledge, learn about non-Dalish practices, and show they are responsible with their magic, then they either go back to their Clan, go to another Clan, or stay or whatever. (sort of like a College... Of Enchanters).
The impartial Templar/Inquisitor observer of Dalish practice of Magic can be an Elf, or even a Dalish who works for the Chantry or closest ruling Kingdom and agrees to to be impartial (not sure if I'm using impartial right but...)
Finally! This one understands!
We can make proposals. We can negotiate degrees, and exchanges. We can propose new ideas and new ways of thinking that might actually help whatever we consider our goals to be.
Zathrian has an obligation to aid the Grey Wardens. There is a treaty. It doesn't matter whether he wants to have all of Ferelden burn - he's committed, as all clans have, to stop the Blight.
You asked why I think he's a madman: allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die awful deaths and cursing an entire land to devastation for the sake of vengeance is the action of a madman.
As to his lies, you misunderstood or mischaracterized the point: Zathrian knows for an absolute fact that his immortality is not the product of prolonged isolation from humans. The Dalish believe something more racist than any IRL race supremacist group - even the Nazis didn't argue groups actually festered with disease and had to be quarantined (to my knowledge). Zathrian - rather than doing anything to advance the lore of his people - actively allows them to spread a myth about him he knows is false. That's a complete betrayal of what he is supposed to do as Keeper.
Disease-beliefs of unliked minorities are actually pretty common. It ranges from context to context, but it's pretty common to associate a despised population group with filth, dirtyness, and so on. Think of the term 'wet back', and then some.
The Nazi's were a special breed of crazy, since Hitler believed that Jewish contamination even affected sciences and laws of physics on some crazy-stupid level.
I don't mind favoritism of Andrastianism, after all, it is the largest religion in the known world.
However, I do mind the inability of our character to refuse it, to attack it, or to believe in a different God and argue against Andrastianism.
Honestly, that religion is boring. Their God, if he is even real and exists, is dead and inanimate, uninvolved in the affairs of the world and uncaring. Worshiping him is useless, no more than sniwelling at the feel of an abussive parent or spouse.
Well I mean, you do have that option.
Cassandra, "Tell me this, you said you don't believe you are the chosen one. So does that mean you don't believe in the maker?"
Your can answer with the I'm an Elf option
"I'm Dalish remember, I believe in my own Gods"
Cassandra, "I suppose it doesn't matter now. I suppose I have to believe...."
I mean you can even tell Vivienne and Cassandra, The Chantry should be destroyed
I mean it's disappointing that it's the main focus of the Trespasser DLC. But I wish there was a third option for the Inquisition's future, but then again it would then diminish the Inquisitor as a hero, but there should always be that opportunity to turn oneself evil; "evil"
1) However you like it, Swear Allegiance to the Divine Victoria
2) Disban the Inquisition in front of the Divine, the Nobles, and everyone in the Exalted council
And third option, which honestly should have either been Extremely High Maxed Approval for Solas and
If Human Inquisitor drank from the Well of Sorrows
or Elf Inquisitor but Only those conditions
3) Drop to your knees and swear your allegiance to Fen'Harel. effectively disbanning the Inquisition and Solas accepting you
Personally it be interesting outcome to the story, especially if they were really going for a new Protagonist. Then it gives some gravity. You see the former Inquisition members, specifically your party you took through the Eluvian
"I cannot believe the Inquisitor would swear allegiance to Solas"
"I cannot believe they both betrayed us"
"What do we need now"
"Whatever it is, we must stop them,"
Boom Tevinter Imperium and your Inquisitor becomes a baddie, and it just allow new space for a new protagonist without feeling like we'll never get a conclusion to the Inquisitor's story.
Well I mean, you do have that option.
Cassandra, "Tell me this, you said you don't believe you are the chosen one. So does that mean you don't believe in the maker?"
Your can answer with the I'm an Elf option
"I'm Dalish remember, I believe in my own Gods"
Cassandra, "I suppose it doesn't matter now. I suppose I have to believe...."
I mean you can even tell Vivienne and Cassandra, The Chantry should be destroyed
I mean it's disappointing that it's the main focus of the Trespasser DLC. But I wish there was a third option for the Inquisition's future, but then again it would then diminish the Inquisitor as a hero, but there should always be that opportunity to turn oneself evil; "evil"
1) However you like it, Swear Allegiance to the Divine Victoria
2) Disban the Inquisition in front of the Divine, the Nobles, and everyone in the Exalted council
And third option, which honestly should have either been Extremely High Maxed Approval for Solas and
If Human Inquisitor drank from the Well of Sorrows
or Elf Inquisitor but Only those conditions
3) Drop to your knees and swear your allegiance to Fen'Harel. effectively disbanning the Inquisition and Solas accepting you
Personally it be interesting outcome to the story, especially if they were really going for a new Protagonist. Then it gives some gravity. You see the former Inquisition members, specifically your party you took through the Eluvian
"I cannot believe the Inquisitor would swear allegiance to Solas"
"I cannot believe they both betrayed us"
"What do we need now"
"Whatever it is, we must stop them,"
Boom Tevinter Imperium and your Inquisitor becomes a baddie, and it just allow new space for a new protagonist without feeling like we'll never get a conclusion to the Inquisitor's story.
I think a religion choice for a new character creation would be a great addition, provided it causes discussion and debates between you and others based on that. Its interesting to imagine how Casandra would react if you told her you worship the Old Gods. From my talk with Kieran, the Old Gods dont seem half bad, they seem kind.
I think a religion choice for a new character creation would be a great addition, provided it causes discussion and debates between you and others based on that. Its interesting to imagine how Casandra would react if you told her you worship the Old Gods. From my talk with Kieran, the Old Gods dont seem half bad, they seem kind.
The Old Gods seem like awesome people. I'd be down for that. I generally run really Aethist Inquisitors, except for my Lord Trevelyan, only because it fit their lore. Their family are templars, have a bunch of connections to the Chantry. It only made darn sense that he would be Andrastrian.
Fintan Levallan [White Fire, his name means white fire] I made him older than most of my characters, not entirely old old, but not entirely young young either, a good middle age for an elf, who in my head cannon being at the age he was was more of a keeper himself. Someone who trained the other elves. He completely disgusted with the idea of being the Chosen one for a God he doesn't believe. For that is a shame to him. It's a fate nearly being enslaved to the Dalish misunderstanding of their own history. He seeks for clarity, understanding, and doesn't bullshit around. So sometimes he comes off rude, ironically though he's the lover of Cassandra. While lore wise it only made sense that my Trevelyan married and wooed Josephine. But I guess in this case it was also a bit of love and not politic considering Esmond a bit of a sarcastic snark who takes the opportunity to flirt with who he can.
Uh there was a point here.
If there was a God Fintan would follow, after learning of what he did, about the washed history of his people, he'd find his own Dalish beliefs disgusting, not necessarily a man of faith, but he would find solitude in something like the Old Gods.
I think Faith is completely bound by three things;
-The way someone grew up and how much they honored that tradition
-The way someone learns about new information and how they process it
-And how someone seeks knowledge and answers
The Old Gods seem like awesome people. I'd be down for that. I generally run really Aethist Inquisitors, except for my Lord Trevelyan, only because it fit their lore. Their family are templars, have a bunch of connections to the Chantry. It only made darn sense that he would be Andrastrian.
Fintan Levallan [White Fire, his name means white fire] I made him older than most of my characters, not entirely old old, but not entirely young young either, a good middle age for an elf, who in my head cannon being at the age he was was more of a keeper himself. Someone who trained the other elves. He completely disgusted with the idea of being the Chosen one for a God he doesn't believe. For that is a shame to him. It's a fate nearly being enslaved to the Dalish misunderstanding of their own history. He seeks for clarity, understanding, and doesn't bullshit around. So sometimes he comes off rude, ironically though he's the lover of Cassandra. While lore wise it only made sense that my Trevelyan married and wooed Josephine. But I guess in this case it was also a bit of love and not politic considering Esmond a bit of a sarcastic snark who takes the opportunity to flirt with who he can.
Uh there was a point here.
If there was a God Fintan would follow, after learning of what he did, about the washed history of his people, he'd find his own Dalish beliefs disgusting, not necessarily a man of faith, but he would find solitude in something like the Old Gods.
I think Faith is completely bound by three things;
-The way someone grew up and how much they honored that tradition
-The way someone learns about new information and how they process it
-And how someone seeks knowledge and answers
I dont know if you can be an atheist in a fantasy world such as Dragon age or Skyrim. Gods are self evident trough magic, trough demons and more. You might be a Naytheist, refusing to serve a God or let God influence you, but acknowledging they exist.
When it comes to religion in DA games, I hope we get a reveal at the end that Maker is just a huge demon whose domain is the black city, and who led mortals away from other Gods trough Andraste, enabling various demoning invasions.
You think we might get that in sliders from 1 to 10 in belief, practice and honoring of religion after we chose one for our character 
I dont know if you can be an atheist in a fantasy world such as Dragon age or Skyrim. Gods are self evident trough magic, trough demons and more. You might be a Naytheist, refusing to serve a God or let God influence you, but acknowledging they exist.
When it comes to religion in DA games, I hope we get a reveal at the end that Maker is just a huge demon whose domain is the black city, and who led mortals away from other Gods trough Andraste, enabling various demoning invasions.
You think we might get that in sliders from 1 to 10 in belief, practice and honoring of religion after we chose one for our character
That would be awesome.
Yes, I meant, Naytheist....sorry get all my terms all messed up.
Your suggestions are based on the implicit assumption that the Chantry's ideology is rightfully dominant. That I contest.
There's nothing implicit about the Chantry being 'rightfully' dominant. It simply is. Existence is not endorsement, but ultimately only addressing reality makes real changes to, well, real conditions.
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.
Which 'fundamental aspect' is this? That the tribe exists to serve the Keeper? The mages are the rightful leaders of mundanes? Those might be as fundamental to the Dalish as 'it's the human's fault', but that doesn't mean it's good. On abstract, or practicality, in short term or long.
As a leadership selection strategy just in terms of leadership quality, it's stupid- mages are not inherently smarter, wiser, or more capable leaders than mundanes. In terms of history, it's somewhere between ironic and unintentional hypocratic ignorance- the Dalish, who claim to never submit again, submit to mage leaders because that's what they think they've always done, not realizing that mage-eltism was the first submission of the people. Practically and ideologically, the premise that some people deserve to boss around The People just because of an accident of birth is something that easily deserves to be questioned.
And that's just internally. What does that cultural practice do externally? It antagonizes the very people whose tolerance the Dalish clans need to survive. It creates a constant tension which leaves the proud people fleeing for their safety on a constant basis. It's one of the biggest reasons they can't establish enclaves and re-establish the sort of society that would do far better at preserving elven history and other cultural practices. The Ancient Elves weren't nomads, so the Dalish are always going to have to give up their current way of life anyway even in the most ideal circumstances.
The Dalish culture isn't The Way Things Should Be Always. It always is, always was, and inevitably would change. If it's going to change, it would absolutely be worth considering the deliberate ways it could change that might actually benefit the Dalish. Changing a mediocre leadership that primarily exists 'because that's how it's always been done' is absolutely worth considering, if only to decide what, exactly, about it is worth preserving.
That's why I threw out a spectrum of things that could be considered, not a single proposal I'm positing as The Way. Obviously most of them will be rejected- though whether those rejections are wise is a separate thing..Ditching mages entirely would certainly be radical- but the point isn't that the Dalish would, but that they could, and that there could be real benefits from such a cultural change.
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.
Enjoy watching the Dalish decline on the way to extinction, then, because the two cultures aren't on equal footing.
One is established, well organized, militarily robust, has a dynamic political system both capable of conducting negotiations and better equipped at fulfilling them, is growing in capability and influence over time, and finally is secure enough in its position that the situation is a minor concern, not an existential threat. The other the Dalish, who are in a decline in nearly every respect. The two groups can not compromise as equal if they are not equal in every politically relevant category.
The Dalish need things to change more. The Dalish need an improvement in relations more. The Dalish are in far greater danger if the negotiations do not pan out. The Dalish are asking for far more, and already have far less to offer. For the Chantry and Andrastian nations, this is handling a minor and occasional nuissance: for the Dalish, relations with the Chantry are an existential subject.
The negotiating positions are not equal, and preconditioning relations on the pretense that they will be will accomplish nothing.
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?
Relative effort on your part is irrelevant unless it corresponds to a relevant impact on the other party's part. Someone who struggles on something that offers very little benefit to the other party isn't going to impress anyone into making significant concessions.
If you want trade with someone, you have to give them something that they want- not something that's hard for your to deliver. Whether it's hard for you to deliver or not is irrelevant to their vaulation of it.
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.
The justification for considering is is 'survival of the Dalish as a relevant polity within Andrastian lands, so that they can represent the True Elfy Way for all elves in the future.
If the Dalish exile themselves outside Andrastian lands, they won't be leading or bringing in the city elves. If the Dalish succumb to fragmentation, they won't maintain the True Elfy Way. If the Dalish refuse reconciliation and instead remain in opposition, attrition, or even face outright eradication later, the Dalish will be dead and there will be no True Elfy Way and no Elfy Alternative for the city elves at all.
Dalish culture needs to change to save itself. If it refuses to change itself, it's just trapping itself in its current downward trajectory.
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.
It's also one of the most important things to consider, because how you select your leaders determines how you establish your elites, and the wrong sort of elites can be far more ruinous for the culture. Elites should take actions for the culture as a whole- the culture shouldn't be built around protecting the elites.
If the Dalish can make a strong argument on the merits of a Mage-Keeper system, that's fine- but they can only do that if the pros and the cons are considered. So far the pros have been 'that's how they always do it,' 'change is bad,' and 'mages are more more worthy.'
Forgive me if I find none of those particularly laudable.
Given that the Chantry more or less left Rivain's Seers alone, with the crackdown undertaken by the templars alone, I kind of doubt that the specifics of elven government will be high on the list of concerns for any human nations with which the Dalish would negotiate. If the Dalish can keep their mages from blowing up humans, I think it'll be more or less a nonissue, especially with the precedent of the College of Enchanters.
I say avoid the Chantry altogether. More specifically the Southern Chantry. They themselves have habit of not being the best at negotiation. They have a pretty well defined idea of how mages should be managed, and are not exactly culturally sensitive to those who manage them differently.
Rivain is perhaps the primary instance where the Chantry was unwilling to compromise with local tradition. A Circle was put in to appease them, libraries stocked, mages sent, education underway. But the Chantry was all but mortified to learn that mages were allowed to leave the Cirlce on a regular basis, still allowed to visit their families, and train under local Seers. Even though the Rivaini populace was even willing to operate with the Templars and further their investigations instead of shunning them.
Now--and this is important context---the Rivaini people do practice arts concerning possession. It is part of their culture. It is understandable, and even commendable to a degree, that the Chantry was concerned with these practices. But according to certain (but not all) accounts, the Right of Annulment was more in response to mages continually participating in local freedoms/culture than they were possession.
But from my point of view the danger is clear. The Southern Chantry may not be willing to compromise, and may use whatever foothold they have in another culture to initiate a slaughter. Whatever hypothetical agreement the Dalish would have with the Circle/Chantry would be a tumultuous set of relations at best and an opening for a massacre at worst. I'd sooner have the Dalish form a compromise with the Avaar, the Mortalitasi, Orzamaar or even Tevinter before they got anywhere near Orlais or the Chantry.
A compromise can only work if both are willing to put in effort, and as it is, it is likely neither side will want to.
The other bit is that neither 'side' may be able to. The Andrastian Chantry exists, but the Divine- no matter who it is- is going to be contested and beset with problems of making the Mage reforms of post-Inquisition, and the Qunari-Tevinter concerns, and so on. Their ability to make, or enforce, major changes is limited. If a local nation doesn't play ball, like Rivaini and the mages, there's not too much they can do (though an Inquisition under the Divine will help as an enforcement mechanism).
And thing is, the Dalish have it even worse. The Chantry has a single leader with whom negotiations can occur. The Dalish don't. They're so decentralized that negotiation would, on a continental level, be meaningless. There'd be no way for Dalish negotiator at Clan X to be able to force Clan Z to follow an agreement in spirit and letter. Even if the decade-long reunion meeting somehow came to a consensus to support it, there'd be no means to enforce it. There's no Dalish Inqusition to keep the clans in line.
But!
That doesn't mean negotiations aren't possible, or desirable. It just means the target should change from 'the Chantry' to 'the Andrastian nation.'
You don't like Orlais? Cool. Neverra doesn't like Orlais either. Neither does Ferelden. Strike a deal with them, and you could likely get a better, and different, deal.
If the Dalish form de-facto regional confederations- where local clans who actually do bump into and interact with eachother come to consensus agreements- those regional-units could conduct their own negotiations with the regional elites. Such an agreement would have no bearing on Dalish across the continent, but who cares? It's not pretending to be all-encompasing. It can be tailored to the regional concerns, and the regional compromises.
In Rivaini, the Chantry and the Crown prize political stability over doctrinal thoroughness. Even if we didn't have an encampment there already, the local Dalish tribes would have the basis to have a strong negotiating position. They don't rock the boat, and they get left alone.
In Ferelden, we have a strong farmer-centric culture, and we know of Dalish friction with farmers and merchants and established populations. The Dalish boon didn't pan out- too much of a land-claim by too weak a Crown dependent on small independent farmers- but a smaller-scale agreement with local Banns might be a better fit. Arrange a cease fire, and supporting things, and you might have something more plausible even if it's not 'territory' per see.
Near Kirkwall, where the Templars were (still are?) strong, Mages might be the real sticking point. Maybe the clan there agree to transfer their mages to clans near other Marcher cities that don't have the objection. Say, wherever Sebastian from- and maybe that city-state's concession is that the local Dalish clans allow missionary activity.
And so on and so on. Can't get a good deal with Orlais? Okay. Maybe staying outside it is better. Maybe Nevarra is more willing to give you shelter, if you pass on information when crossing the Orlais border. Or try somewhere else. Try to make arrangements to live with your neighbors, whoever your neighbors are. Build settlements, and enclaves, and even if you offer some token loyalty/support to the crown if you have a population base you can maintain your autonomy and start building culture centers.
Will this work everywhere? No- some humans won't be willing to make a deal, and some Dalish won't be willing to make the concessions needed for a deal. Will these culture nodes be different from eachother? By necessity. Is cultural uniformity going to be lost? Sure. After some time, a mage-less Kirkwall Dalish clan may not see the big deal of mage-keepers, while others embrace it stronger. But this isn't instead of keeping cultural uniformity- cultural uniformity has already been lost. The Clans are already fragmenting socially, politically, culturally.
It's not a question of diverging, but how much. Controlling it- creating nodes that can keep records and formalize traditions and share- can help preserve what is there better. Instead of meeting once a decade, culture centers can stay in stay in contact with eachother constantly, make and maintain correspondances, arrange summits. An entire College of Elves, if you will- autonomous, self-defining, self-regulating. Not all elves will recognize it, any more than all mages recognize the Circle, but it would be something new and different that could actually try to speak on behalf of the elves, rather than proclaim themselves the Elfiest of Elves and trudge on towards self-ruin.
Dependent on the tolerance of the locals? Sure- but the Dalish already are. If a Kingdom wanted to wipe out the Dalish clans in their area, there's nothing stopping them from trying. A change from nomadism? Absolutely- but the Dalish have always claimed they want to. Contentions? Absolutely.
The nature of compromise is that you always give up things you don't actually want to give up. Cultural compromise is the same. If the Dalish wanted to make the changes without outsiders acting as a catalyst, they already would have. But being for the sake of co-existence with someone else doesn't make a reform not a reform, and it doesn't make the gains- peace, social growth, co-existence- any less valuable than what was given up.
The other bit is that neither 'side' may be able to. The Andrastian Chantry exists, but the Divine- no matter who it is- is going to be contested and beset with problems of making the Mage reforms of post-Inquisition, and the Qunari-Tevinter concerns, and so on. Their ability to make, or enforce, major changes is limited. If a local nation doesn't play ball, like Rivaini and the mages, there's not too much they can do (though an Inquisition under the Divine will help as an enforcement mechanism).
And thing is, the Dalish have it even worse. The Chantry has a single leader with whom negotiations can occur. The Dalish don't. They're so decentralized that negotiation would, on a continental level, be meaningless. There'd be no way for Dalish negotiator at Clan X to be able to force Clan Z to follow an agreement in spirit and letter. Even if the decade-long reunion meeting somehow came to a consensus to support it, there'd be no means to enforce it. There's no Dalish Inqusition to keep the clans in line.
But!
That doesn't mean negotiations aren't possible, or desirable. It just means the target should change from 'the Chantry' to 'the Andrastian nation.'
You don't like Orlais? Cool. Neverra doesn't like Orlais either. Neither does Ferelden. Strike a deal with them, and you could likely get a better, and different, deal.
If the Dalish form de-facto regional confederations- where local clans who actually do bump into and interact with eachother come to consensus agreements- those regional-units could conduct their own negotiations with the regional elites. Such an agreement would have no bearing on Dalish across the continent, but who cares? It's not pretending to be all-encompasing. It can be tailored to the regional concerns, and the regional compromises.
In Rivaini, the Chantry and the Crown prize political stability over doctrinal thoroughness. Even if we didn't have an encampment there already, the local Dalish tribes would have the basis to have a strong negotiating position. They don't rock the boat, and they get left alone.
In Ferelden, we have a strong farmer-centric culture, and we know of Dalish friction with farmers and merchants and established populations. The Dalish boon didn't pan out- too much of a land-claim by too weak a Crown dependent on small independent farmers- but a smaller-scale agreement with local Banns might be a better fit. Arrange a cease fire, and supporting things, and you might have something more plausible even if it's not 'territory' per see.
Near Kirkwall, where the Templars were (still are?) strong, Mages might be the real sticking point. Maybe the clan there agree to transfer their mages to clans near other Marcher cities that don't have the objection. Say, wherever Sebastian from- and maybe that city-state's concession is that the local Dalish clans allow missionary activity.
And so on and so on. Can't get a good deal with Orlais? Okay. Maybe staying outside it is better. Maybe Nevarra is more willing to give you shelter, if you pass on information when crossing the Orlais border. Or try somewhere else. Try to make arrangements to live with your neighbors, whoever your neighbors are. Build settlements, and enclaves, and even if you offer some token loyalty/support to the crown if you have a population base you can maintain your autonomy and start building culture centers.
Will this work everywhere? No- some humans won't be willing to make a deal, and some Dalish won't be willing to make the concessions needed for a deal. Will these culture nodes be different from eachother? By necessity. Is cultural uniformity going to be lost? Sure. After some time, a mage-less Kirkwall Dalish clan may not see the big deal of mage-keepers, while others embrace it stronger. But this isn't instead of keeping cultural uniformity- cultural uniformity has already been lost. The Clans are already fragmenting socially, politically, culturally.
It's not a question of diverging, but how much. Controlling it- creating nodes that can keep records and formalize traditions and share- can help preserve what is there better. Instead of meeting once a decade, culture centers can stay in stay in contact with eachother constantly, make and maintain correspondances, arrange summits. An entire College of Elves, if you will- autonomous, self-defining, self-regulating. Not all elves will recognize it, any more than all mages recognize the Circle, but it would be something new and different that could actually try to speak on behalf of the elves, rather than proclaim themselves the Elfiest of Elves and trudge on towards self-ruin.
Dependent on the tolerance of the locals? Sure- but the Dalish already are. If a Kingdom wanted to wipe out the Dalish clans in their area, there's nothing stopping them from trying. A change from nomadism? Absolutely- but the Dalish have always claimed they want to. Contentions? Absolutely.
The nature of compromise is that you always give up things you don't actually want to give up. Cultural compromise is the same. If the Dalish wanted to make the changes without outsiders acting as a catalyst, they already would have. But being for the sake of co-existence with someone else doesn't make a reform not a reform, and it doesn't make the gains- peace, social growth, co-existence- any less valuable than what was given up.
No need to go so in detail on the contention with Dalish's splintering solidarity. I'm no Gervaise.
I myself agree that cooperation might be a better fit for the Dalish (or parts of them anyway). I just don't think the Chantry (or Orlais) would be good way to go about it.
Hence why I was throwing out "odd ball" suggestions like the mortalitassi or Orzamaar. It's not that I think the Dalish are better off staying secluded forever, I just think that given the way certain institutions tend to go about dealing with the nomads that the Dalish should approach a nation/institution more likely to, you know, legit compromise with them.
I don't have much of a heart for continuing the arguments in light of today's announcement.
It's been a pleasure y'all.
I should point out that I did co-operate with the Andrastrians. I was a good little Dalish and did as I was told. I listened to my advisers. Where did it get me? If I was lucky and made all the right choices at the War Table, my clan just may be have a foothold in Wycome. I was all in favour of that because no one suggested that my Keeper be locked up or wasn't fit to sit on the city council because of her religion. Mind you, it took the full might of the Inquisition to prevent a massacre. Still I didn't notice anyone suggesting that since the Inquisitor had created such a good impression, perhaps it might be an idea to start talks with the Dalish, with them as a mediator. Had this been a plot point in the game, that is something I would have worked with.
Up in Rivain, where the locals had been working with the Chantry along the lines you suggest, the moment things went wrong with the mages elsewhere in Thedas, the instant reaction of the Templars and Chantry was to call for an annulment, purely on the basis that the Circle was an open one. To be honest the Templars couldn't have been doing a very good supervisory role of that Circle if the situation was such a surprise to them.
To my mind the most dangerous type of abomination isn't the twisted hideous one that is obvious to anyone looking on, it is the willing possession of the mage (or anyone else for that matter). The Templars seem pretty useless at spotting this type of person, particularly if it is a supposedly benign spirit possession. Wynne lived under their noses for years without anyone suspecting a thing. The only reason the Templar spotted Justice taking over Anders was that it happened virtually under his nose and then it seemed he was powerless to deal with it. Apparently none of the Templars realised that they were being led by a demon masquerading as Lucius. So the idea that having a permanent Templars presence with each clan doesn't really hold much weight. Whatever way the clans have dealt with possessed mages (the twisted sort) up to now, it has obviously worked or there wouldn't be any Dalish.
Mage possession was never the issue with regard to mages. That was just a convenient way of selling the idea of keeping mages separate from the community. If mages seemed to get possessed on a regular basis in the Circles, that is likely because of the fact that the Veil is always thin where there are large concentrations of magic, combined with the mages themselves being in a constant state of stress and encouraged to fear their powers. It is odd that when the rebellion occurred in the White Spire, so far as I recall, not one mage fell to possession, despite the violence and fear of the situation. Odd that, wouldn't you think?
If you read the codex about the creation of the Circles, it maintains (and this could again just be Chantry propaganda) that the mages were in favour of this because it meant they could explore the extent of their powers and experiment in a safe environment. Up to then it would seem that they were allowed to mix with the community but only if they restricted themselves to the simplest of spells. So it was agreed that if they wanted to do more they would live in remote, controlled communities where they would not be a risk to the wider population and if things did go wrong, there would be non-mage experts on hand to deal with it. This seemed an eminently sensible solution. I wouldn't argue with this at all. In fact the disastrous result of non-monitored magical experimentation at Adamant showed how proper regulation is needed to avoid such tragedies. I would imagine even Tevinter would agree with this.
However, somehow this moved from a situation where the most powerful mages were conducting their experiments in a controlled environment, to all mages being rounded up, placed in Circles and unable to leave without permission. This seems somewhat extreme when some mages have only negligible magic and would probably be happy to limit themselves to a few healing spells. Since Chantrys invariably have Templars in attendance, they could even have been attached to these institutions, so if they did become possessed, the Templars could deal with it. However, they could still have mingled with the wider community as well. What could be wrong with that?
This is where the political aspect of the Circles comes in. It is noticeable how the children of the nobility are treated differently from the peasantry. Noble mages are permitted to keep in contact with their families, they can have visits and provided they have the right connections, they also seem to be allowed out to attend functions. The latter can also happen under closely controlled conditions for non-nobility, but not nearly as often as for the others. It seems to me that in order to limit the potential for any uprisings among the peasantry, they needed to ensure they didn't have the potential advantages of mages among them. So under the excuse of maintaining public safety, all mages are required to enter the Circles on manifesting their powers. However, thereafter only the peasant mages feel the full effects of being there in being cut off totally from their families and all outside influences.
So, getting back to the Dalish. Their system of governance it is true is based on the assumption that mages are somehow superior to the mundane. This largely results from the belief that all elves once had magical ability, which as it turns out was entirely true. Now the revelations about their gods doesn't really change this. True they were mage tyrants but when everyone was a mage. Do the Keepers operate as tyrants? Not really. They certainly do lead the community but if the Keeper was a non-mage, would that make them any less likely to be a tyrant under the right circumstances? Of course it wouldn't. Looking again at the Rivaini, apparently it is part of their culture that the leader of their communities is not just a mage but a woman. So my male non-mage Lavellan would be doubly penalised if that was the case. The reason for the most part that the Chantry couldn't eradicate this practice was because it was too much part of their traditional society and too difficult to enforce away from the main centre of government. Under the Dalish system, as recounted in DAO, the various mages in the clan compete for the honour of being First. What exactly they are expected to do to win approval was not stated but it is clear they have to demonstrate superiority in something. Naturally, if you are just going to drop every 4th mage from the clan willy nilly, then the idea of getting the best person for the job goes out of the window. Still, the Dalish insisting on maintaining their tradition of being led by a senior mage is no different really to that of Rivain. If the rest of Thedas is willing to co-exist and do business with them, then the fact that the Dalish have a similar tradition should not be an impossible problem to overcome. So I will concede, if this had been offered to my Lavellan as the basis for negotiations with his own people, that would have been reasonable.
What I was talking about above, when I said that compromise was simply submission, was with regard to accepting the Chantry as our faith. I am not clear if the Rivaini wise women actually acknowledge the authority of the Chantry. It would be odd if they did, since the Chantry teach that magic is a corrupting influence on the world. May be it is easier there because the Rivaini have a pantheistic outlook, so to them the Maker is the universe and the universe is the Maker. That is probably easier to reconcile to Chantry beliefs than their views on magic.
My chief objection to being forced into adopting the Chantry as a faith is that the revelations concerning Solas and the Evanuris don't just undermine Dalish belief but in fact put any even bigger question mark against the Chantry's teaching. Having delved into the history of the organisation it seems that the belief system it promotes was not that of Andraste but of Drakon. Anyone whose idea of Andrastrianism differed from his own was put to the sword. The history of Andraste as recounted by secular scholars does not match up with the history given in the Chant. The Orlesian idea of rule by Divine Right has no foundation in the Chant and yet has been maintained by their nobility with the backing of the Chantry to this day. Every abuse of the nobility on the peasantry can be justified by this idea that the Maker has given them the authority to do so. This goes beyond even the belief of the Teviner mages that magic is a gift of the Maker and so gives them the right to rule.
So, yes, compromise with the Chantry over matters of faith, would be a total sell out of my beliefs. The Dalish do not believe that being one of the clan elders gives you the right to abuse the weaker members of the clan. Whilst the Keeper is the ultimate authority in the clan, the other senior members are consulted on issues. Their attitude to other members of the clan and the natural world is based off the example given by the gods they believe in. To them these were benign guides and teachers. The fact that their gods were revealed to be tyrants, doesn't take away from the basic concepts they believe in. In fact, Solas admits they weren't always that way, so really what this has revealed is a warning about the corrupting nature of power and how any leader should be aware of this.
The conduct of the clan seems far closer to societies like Rivain or the Avaar than to any of the main stream ones in Thedas. It seems to me to be significant that the only alternative systems of governance that I could stomach are those which have grown up independently of the Chantry, whether Black or White. Thus the only faith systems that would be acceptable would be separate from the Chantry. If the Chantry had just once in all its history condemned the excesses of the Orlesian nobility in the Game, had declared the activities of the Chevaliers unacceptable, had stood up to the Crows, had monitored their Templars properly and selected them on the basis of moral integrity, not religious fervour, I might be persuaded to compromise. The fact is that they have not. They have focussed on the evils of magic to the total exclusion of the other moral imperatives of their own Chant. If they truly believed in the Maker they would not allow such abuses by those in power. Thus I cannot accept their faith.
What I would like would be a new religious movement. I was rather hoping I might be able to start one as Herald. Sadly that was not the case. The best I could do was mess with the current establishment as much as I could but it didn't go nearly far enough.
I should point out that I did co-operate with the Andrastrians. I was a good little Dalish and did as I was told. I listened to my advisers. Where did it get me? If I was lucky and made all the right choices at the War Table, my clan just may be have a foothold in Wycome. I was all in favour of that because no one suggested that my Keeper be locked up or wasn't fit to sit on the city council because of her religion. Mind you, it took the full might of the Inquisition to prevent a massacre. Still I didn't notice anyone suggesting that since the Inquisitor had created such a good impression, perhaps it might be an idea to start talks with the Dalish, with them as a mediator. Had this been a plot point in the game, that is something I would have worked with.
Up in Rivain, where the locals had been working with the Chantry along the lines you suggest, the moment things went wrong with the mages elsewhere in Thedas, the instant reaction of the Templars and Chantry was to call for an annulment, purely on the basis that the Circle was an open one. To be honest the Templars couldn't have been doing a very good supervisory role of that Circle if the situation was such a surprise to them.
To my mind the most dangerous type of abomination isn't the twisted hideous one that is obvious to anyone looking on, it is the willing possession of the mage (or anyone else for that matter). The Templars seem pretty useless at spotting this type of person, particularly if it is a supposedly benign spirit possession. Wynne lived under their noses for years without anyone suspecting a thing. The only reason the Templar spotted Justice taking over Anders was that it happened virtually under his nose and then it seemed he was powerless to deal with it. Apparently none of the Templars realised that they were being led by a demon masquerading as Lucius. So the idea that having a permanent Templars presence with each clan doesn't really hold much weight. Whatever way the clans have dealt with possessed mages (the twisted sort) up to now, it has obviously worked or there wouldn't be any Dalish.
Mage possession was never the issue with regard to mages. That was just a convenient way of selling the idea of keeping mages separate from the community. If mages seemed to get possessed on a regular basis in the Circles, that is likely because of the fact that the Veil is always thin where there are large concentrations of magic, combined with the mages themselves being in a constant state of stress and encouraged to fear their powers. It is odd that when the rebellion occurred in the White Spire, so far as I recall, not one mage fell to possession, despite the violence and fear of the situation. Odd that, wouldn't you think?
If you read the codex about the creation of the Circles, it maintains (and this could again just be Chantry propaganda) that the mages were in favour of this because it meant they could explore the extent of their powers and experiment in a safe environment. Up to then it would seem that they were allowed to mix with the community but only if they restricted themselves to the simplest of spells. So it was agreed that if they wanted to do more they would live in remote, controlled communities where they would not be a risk to the wider population and if things did go wrong, there would be non-mage experts on hand to deal with it. This seemed an eminently sensible solution. I wouldn't argue with this at all. In fact the disastrous result of non-monitored magical experimentation at Adamant showed how proper regulation is needed to avoid such tragedies. I would imagine even Tevinter would agree with this.
However, somehow this moved from a situation where the most powerful mages were conducting their experiments in a controlled environment, to all mages being rounded up, placed in Circles and unable to leave without permission. This seems somewhat extreme when some mages have only negligible magic and would probably be happy to limit themselves to a few healing spells. Since Chantrys invariably have Templars in attendance, they could even have been attached to these institutions, so if they did become possessed, the Templars could deal with it. However, they could still have mingled with the wider community as well. What could be wrong with that?
This is where the political aspect of the Circles comes in. It is noticeable how the children of the nobility are treated differently from the peasantry. Noble mages are permitted to keep in contact with their families, they can have visits and provided they have the right connections, they also seem to be allowed out to attend functions. The latter can also happen under closely controlled conditions for non-nobility, but not nearly as often as for the others. It seems to me that in order to limit the potential for any uprisings among the peasantry, they needed to ensure they didn't have the potential advantages of mages among them. So under the excuse of maintaining public safety, all mages are required to enter the Circles on manifesting their powers. However, thereafter only the peasant mages feel the full effects of being there in being cut off totally from their families and all outside influences.
So, getting back to the Dalish. Their system of governance it is true is based on the assumption that mages are somehow superior to the mundane. This largely results from the belief that all elves once had magical ability, which as it turns out was entirely true. Now the revelations about their gods doesn't really change this. True they were mage tyrants but when everyone was a mage. Do the Keepers operate as tyrants? Not really. They certainly do lead the community but if the Keeper was a non-mage, would that make them any less likely to be a tyrant under the right circumstances? Of course it wouldn't. Looking again at the Rivaini, apparently it is part of their culture that the leader of their communities is not just a mage but a woman. So my male non-mage Lavellan would be doubly penalised if that was the case. The reason for the most part that the Chantry couldn't eradicate this practice was because it was too much part of their traditional society and too difficult to enforce away from the main centre of government. Under the Dalish system, as recounted in DAO, the various mages in the clan compete for the honour of being First. What exactly they are expected to do to win approval was not stated but it is clear they have to demonstrate superiority in something. Naturally, if you are just going to drop every 4th mage from the clan willy nilly, then the idea of getting the best person for the job goes out of the window. Still, the Dalish insisting on maintaining their tradition of being led by a senior mage is no different really to that of Rivain. If the rest of Thedas is willing to co-exist and do business with them, then the fact that the Dalish have a similar tradition should not be an impossible problem to overcome. So I will concede, if this had been offered to my Lavellan as the basis for negotiations with his own people, that would have been reasonable.
What I was talking about above, when I said that compromise was simply submission, was with regard to accepting the Chantry as our faith. I am not clear if the Rivaini wise women actually acknowledge the authority of the Chantry. It would be odd if they did, since the Chantry teach that magic is a corrupting influence on the world. May be it is easier there because the Rivaini have a pantheistic outlook, so to them the Maker is the universe and the universe is the Maker. That is probably easier to reconcile to Chantry beliefs than their views on magic.
My chief objection to being forced into adopting the Chantry as a faith is that the revelations concerning Solas and the Evanuris don't just undermine Dalish belief but in fact put any even bigger question mark against the Chantry's teaching. Having delved into the history of the organisation it seems that the belief system it promotes was not that of Andraste but of Drakon. Anyone whose idea of Andrastrianism differed from his own was put to the sword. The history of Andraste as recounted by secular scholars does not match up with the history given in the Chant. The Orlesian idea of rule by Divine Right has no foundation in the Chant and yet has been maintained by their nobility with the backing of the Chantry to this day. Every abuse of the nobility on the peasantry can be justified by this idea that the Maker has given them the authority to do so. This goes beyond even the belief of the Teviner mages that magic is a gift of the Maker and so gives them the right to rule.
So, yes, compromise with the Chantry over matters of faith, would be a total sell out of my beliefs. The Dalish do not believe that being one of the clan elders gives you the right to abuse the weaker members of the clan. Whilst the Keeper is the ultimate authority in the clan, the other senior members are consulted on issues. Their attitude to other members of the clan and the natural world is based off the example given by the gods they believe in. To them these were benign guides and teachers. The fact that their gods were revealed to be tyrants, doesn't take away from the basic concepts they believe in. In fact, Solas admits they weren't always that way, so really what this has revealed is a warning about the corrupting nature of power and how any leader should be aware of this.
The conduct of the clan seems far closer to societies like Rivain or the Avaar than to any of the main stream ones in Thedas. It seems to me to be significant that the only alternative systems of governance that I could stomach are those which have grown up independently of the Chantry, whether Black or White. Thus the only faith systems that would be acceptable would be separate from the Chantry. If the Chantry had just once in all its history condemned the excesses of the Orlesian nobility in the Game, had declared the activities of the Chevaliers unacceptable, had stood up to the Crows, had monitored their Templars properly and selected them on the basis of moral integrity, not religious fervour, I might be persuaded to compromise. The fact is that they have not. They have focussed on the evils of magic to the total exclusion of the other moral imperatives of their own Chant. If they truly believed in the Maker they would not allow such abuses by those in power. Thus I cannot accept their faith.
What I would like would be a new religious movement. I was rather hoping I might be able to start one as Herald. Sadly that was not the case. The best I could do was mess with the current establishment as much as I could but it didn't go nearly far enough.
sorry the game didn't coalesce around your super special snowflake of a protagonist
Is that really the best you can come up with? Cheap sarcasm? You don't like elves or elf supporters, I get it (see how annoying sarcasm is?)
I am trying to have a reasoned argument. In case you hadn't noticed the Inquisitor was a rather special protagonist. For some reason, no matter what your choices, we ended up with a Circle and a College of Enchanters no matter who was Divine. Hell, we could even end up with a mage Divine, which was so utterly absurd given Chantry teaching on magic. If you take the trouble to read my post properly and understand why the Chantry is such a mockery of faith, perhaps you will then appreciate why I get so fed up with people insisting that the Dalish should drop their traditions and roll over.
The Dalish and the Rivaini have their own system of worship and governance. They have mage leaders who do not abuse their power in the way that other rulers do. They have standards of morality at the heart of their religion. I know what you are going to say, look at the Dalish and their prejudice against humans. Well take a look at what trying to live with humans and adopting their religion has done for city elves. Still surprising enough the Dalish do trade with friendly humans and they have done their bit in previous Blights. So they are prepared to work with people who don't try to impose their own beliefs on them.
I'd probably be less aggrieved if the Dalish boon promised at the end of DAO had not folded within a few years of it being given, with no adequate explanation either in or out of the game. Still, may be if there is a DA4, something will occur in that to make things better for the elves by the end, just as things were made permanently better for mages at the end of DAI/Trespasser.
If the Chantry had just once in all its history condemned the excesses of the Orlesian nobility in the Game, had declared the activities of the Chevaliers unacceptable, had stood up to the Crows, had monitored their Templars properly and selected them on the basis of moral integrity, not religious fervour, I might be persuaded to compromise. The fact is that they have not.
If think its a rather big assumption that they haven't done those things at some points of their history.
If think its a rather big assumption that they haven't done those things at some points of their history.
Can you prove that they have? From what we can tell, the Chantry turns a blind eye to the immoral and cruel stuff occurring in Orlais and therefore, Gervaise seems to be right.
Can you prove that they have? From what we can tell, the Chantry turns a blind eye to the immoral and cruel stuff occurring in Orlais and therefore, Gervaise seems to be right.
So the claim that they consistently ignored their own doctrines for 940 years without exception seems implausible.
I would say "overlooked" or "neglected" instead of ignored. It's not that implausible.
Of course, I wouldn't be so confident as to say it's been that way for the whole of 900+ years, but even as far back as Drakon's original campaign, people were slain just for subscribing to the wrong brand of Maker worship.
I can't prove that they have, we have very little chantry history really. But the Chant of Light itself, as compiled by the first Divine, says
All men are the Work of our Maker's Hands,
From the lowest slaves
To the highest kings.
Those who bring harm
Without provocation to the least of His children
Are hated and accursed by the Maker.
Those who bear false witness
And work to deceive others, know this:
There is but one Truth.
All things are known to our Maker
And He shall judge their lies.
So the claim that they consistently ignored their own doctrines for 940 years without exception seems implausible.
Thus far, the evidence suggests that the Chantry ignores the Chant regarding what you just quoted. Especially in regards to Orlais and Alienage Elves. As demonstrated with numerous examples that have been brought up earlier in the topic.
Retour en haut