The Blanketfort (crying and throwing up) - The Official Solas Thread [Spoilers]

There is simply no distinction made between elves and other races working for the organization. A fact further confirmed by Dalish Inquisitor also asking Solas "We aren't people to you?", just like Inquisitor of any other race.
We already established that ATM we don't know who the elves have left to join. Plus - the fact that the they left to join doesn't speak anything of their survival or being treated as elves of old. They might as well merely serve a purpose to bring them back, after which they'd experience an 'end' of some sort themselves.

And you're missing the point. The fact that you're making a distinction now doesn't change the fact that you're stating something opposite to what you've been stating right before it. At first you were adamant that when he says 'your people' he means 'not-elves' and that's it - and now you're claiming that the phrase 'your people' the word can have... well... 'quadruple meaning', to quote your own words.

So which one is it? And if you think that he still cares about modern elves and has plans towards them that go beyond destruction - yet at the same time he says that they'd 'end' in some way, it means that similar thing can be applied to any other race.

Again - you can't have a cookie or eat it too. You can't at one point be adamant that there's only one meaning of the word/phrase, only to do a complete 180 in next paragraph without it reflecting pretty poorly on your whole argumentation.

Plus - if you want to make a sound argument, cherry-picking is not a way to do it. You can't point to few pieces of dialogue and ignore everything else that was said in the main game or Trespasser.

And if you insist in doing so, I can argue that Solas also saw EVERYONE as people from the start, because he states this to Blackwall:
Solas: I will remember this. When it is over.
Blackwall: This? This war? The Inquisition?
Solas: The people. How you fought against the tide. It is... courageous.

... and also bring any time when he's addressed people as people, regardless of race. That doesn't change the fact that in Trespasser, which is a conclusion to everything in DAI, he consistently makes a distinction between ANY race that lives in modern Thedas and 'his people'. Modern elves included.

We don't really know why, though it's likely that he's deeply conflicted and, during events of Inquisition, he moves back and forth between relating to people of modern Thedas and sticking to his mission. But in Trespasser he makes it quite clear that - so far - he chooses to stick to his mission, and that mission is predicated on making a distinction between modern people and ancient elves.

IMO the main reason he occasionally relates more to modern elves than other races during the game is because elves are the ones who retained most characteristics of ancient people - if I recall correctly, even his writer mentioned this being the case. But even with elves being most similar it's fairly apparent that - at the end of the day - there are still enough differences there to make a distinction between them and his people. Obviously there's something missing - likely something that goes beyond looks or culture and is probably magical in nature.

It would explain why he makes it clear that the biggest sin of the Veil is cutting "most people's" (regardless of race) conscious connection to the Fade, or why when we mention 'his people' after WEWH he immediately defaults to mages and not elves, which he doesn't relate to much.

The there's Abelas in Temple of Mythal. Just go there as the Dalish Inquisitor or with Sera in the party. In both cases Abelas states that Sera and Inky only resemble elves. But if Solas is in the party, Abelas states that we're travelling with 'one of his own'. Ergo - he sees a difference between Solas and Sera/Inky at a glance and ATM we have no idea what it is.

I'm fairly sure that I didn't argue that EVERY dialogue has quadruple meaning. It's not necessary. What is necessary is to recognize how vague and prone to multiple interpretations significant portion of them are, especially in light of us simply not knowing many crucial details of things he's talking about.

Also - it's easy to say that 'he is warning us', when you ignore the question of 'why is he warning us in the first place?'... which is actually more pertinent here.

Oh? You've seen all his plans and how they want that you can state with certainty how many times he's failed and how many times he didn't? 
Well, you don't need to address this non-argument, because this argument is a glaring strawman.

Sorry, but such games don't work with me. There were no miracles - inspired Leliana is simply an effective negotiator and the world 'miraculously' was merely used for emphasis of her effectiveness. We know she's effective, because of a different outcome in a world-state in which we don't conclude her personal mission - a point you conveniently fail to acknowledge being mentioned.

Dunno... is the lack of baguettes of equal importance to you than an unexpected outcome of certain game choices apparent only after you sink days into playing the game? I mean, it doesn't bother me that much... but I can see how it can be a problem for some, and especially those who don't have as much time for experimenting with choices as I currently do.
So it's only right, moral or justified if you do it?
Lol, I'm sorry but...  since when summoning demons was ever an acceptable method of 'trying to survive', especially on South? The fact that they summoned a dangerous demon, in times when the Veil and Fade went bonkers, let alone that they chose a big, dangerous Pride demon and ordered it to kill would be a reason enough to swiftly put an end to these mages.
When we head to the place of the summoning circle there are bodies strewn around the area that are so burned and mutilated by the demon we can't say who they were - might as well be innocent victims. So either their eagerness to summon demons, or their ignorance on the matter, made them a danger to themselves and others. And to neutralize that danger from threatening more lives Solas is forced to participate in killing his own friend.

So no, sorry, but you can't - you can't use a rare moment of him briefly lashing out after a shattering emotional blow to portray his as someone who 'doesn't use his brain when emotions are involved'. We're talking about exception from the rule here and not some sort of consistent behavior where he just keeps mowing people for slightest annoyances or no good reason whatsoever.

Nevermind that Solas lashing out only after he saw his innocent friend suffer and die (and he was forced to contribute to it, which must've been traumatic on its own, given his history) actually speaks well of his character. We're shown that if he is to lose his temper it ain't because someone insulted him, or ruined his plans or threatens him, like in case of Corypheus - it's when he loses someone a friend to tragic circumstances. People can empathize and relate to this, because if there's one thing to understandably lose control of emotions over, however brief, it's this.

I mean... that's aside from the fact that you are supposed to be his ally who helps him through a difficult moment. At least that's what doing his mission suggests, considering that the quest won't trigger unless a.) your approval is high enough b.) you agree to help him c.) Solas won't touch a hair on their heads if you as much as utter his name, thus showing that he recognizes Inquisitor's role as judge in the matter regardless of his own emotional volatility at this point.

So whether those are 'wasted lives or not', if you're there and not stopping Solas "because you're not a babysitter" (are you like that for other companions as well? They ask for your help and choose to rely on you, oftentimes in making difficult decision and oftentimes in times of uncertainty or deep emotional vulnerability) you're the one who allowed these lives to go to waste.