inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 27, 2021 15:37:55 GMT
In case it wasn't clear, this is all a round-about way of saying that, whether they ultimately prove true or not, Gervaise's speculations are entirely valid, and the argument that in-game accounts favour humans is easily explained by the fact that it was in-game humans who wrote them, and challenging Gervaise to find conflicting, "non-biased" sources is ridiculous and pointless when we all know BioWare has deliberately not written any, and that even if Gervaise found such evidence, the goalposts would miraculously shift of their own accord, and that evidence would no longer prove sufficient. Thank you for saying this so much more eloquently than I could. A case in point is the Canticle of Shartan. This was taken out for political reasons. Then Leliana restores it but scholars promptly cast doubt on the existence of Shartan as an actual individual and suggested that the narrative is actually based on an older elven folk tale (how non-elven scholars know this is anyone's guess). So Andrastrians can conveniently ignore the implications contained in the Canticle: that Andraste regarded Shartan as her equal, as the leader of his people as she was hers, and that her victory at the Valarian Fields was entirely due to the intervention of Shartan and his elves and as a consequence Andraste named Shartan her Champion of Freedom; all because he is not a historically authentic person. Convenient huh? And I'm correct about what I'm saying: The Circles were established before the Nevarran Accords (1:20), because otherwise, Drakon wouldn't be able to use them against the darkspawn in the battles leading up to Cumberland (before 1:16). I'm on firmer ground here. The First Divine was named Justinia. Yet the Divine in charge at the time the Circles were established was Ambrosia. Then World of Thedas asserts this was done around the time the Nevarran Accord was signed with the Inquisition/Templar Order in 1:20. Lambeth also asserted the same when writing to Justinia (IV or V) in 9:40; the Circles came into existence with the co-operation and approval of the Templar Order under Chantry Control. When he rejects her authority over the Seekers and Templars, he simultaneously declares the Circles dissolved, at least under control of the Chantry, because the Templars are required for their control and they no longer owe allegiance to her. Before 1:20 whilst the mages were free to circulate in the community, there were strict limits on how they could used their magic or engage in politics. This is why Drakon had to negotiate with the mages to use their magic against the darkspawn once the 2nd Blight began in 1:5. Presumably they weren't happy when the darkspawn threat receded to some extent in Orlais and they were expected to go back to lighting the holy fire in the Grand Cathedral and other trivial purposes. So a deal was done, the Templars came on board and the closed Circles came into existence. (Or at least that is the way Chantry sources tell it).
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 27, 2021 15:41:17 GMT
"It's valid even if it's not true" is no truth. Putting a different interpretation on events is valid. It is rather difficult for me to find sources to totally contradict the Chantry version that I have not already supplied. However, the Core Rule Book was an eye opener for me and not just about the history of the Dales. Most of that material was written around the time of DAO. It is approved by Bioware. To my mind it is the nearest I am going to get to an unbiased source. I suggest you read it some time.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Aug 27, 2021 15:45:03 GMT
"It's valid even if it's not true" is no truth. Lol, you remember we're talking about a work of fiction, right? BioWare can produce a "True History of Thedas That Proves Humans Are Big Fat Genocidal Rapists and Liars" anytime they want. Gervaise has not actually been arguing that human historians of Thedas were all evil liars, that's a strawman you invented. Her(?) point all along has been that the writers privilege the human viewpoint and rarely/never give a voice to the elven side of events, and that she doesn't like how BioWare keeps inventing new crap to blame on the elves and making excuses for the humans being oppressive invaders. And I actually 100% agree, and would extend that BioWare also does this to the mages and to the barbarian tribes. Maybe they trusted their audience to be able to think more critically. Looks like they overestimated us.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 27, 2021 16:55:23 GMT
"It's valid even if it's not true" is no truth. Okay, here is another example of why I find it hard to take anything in the game as objective truth and why each time they introduced these new aspects of history in JoH, I started questioning everything: How they portray the Andrastrian religion. In the Canticle of Transfigurations that is meant to contain the authentic teaching of Andraste.
The Commandments: (1) These truths the Maker has revealed to me. As there is but one world, one life, one death, there is but one god and He is our Maker. They are sinners who have given their love to false gods.
Now even back in DAI we had the odd situation that when Cassandra was trying to encourage belief in the Maker, Lavellan can respond: "I believe in the elven gods", whereupon Cassandra suggests "Isn't their room in your pantheon for one more." Cassandra has not just committed heresy but blasphemy. Scroll forward to JoH and we find Ameridan offering prayers to Andraste and Ghilan'nain but not the Maker. Cassandra is just mildly surprised at this. Given her previous words to Lavellan, I suppose it is hardly surprising she doesn't point out that Ameridan is also a big fat sinner according to her Chant, for not only still worshiping an elven god but elevating Andraste to godhood as well. Now apparently some of the barbarian tribes continued to worship the Maker as just one of many after Andraste's death. Drakon objected to this and slaughtered anyone who resisted. So what am I to take from this? Are the alleged words of Andraste false and she never asserted monotheism? Thus it was possible to worship the Maker/Andraste/other gods simultaneously, as Ameridan and the barbarian tribes seemed to be doing, but Drakon had his own ideas, probably around one god/one empire/one emperor and changed the Chant to reflect his worldview? Or is the teaching in the Chant authentic and therefore Ameridan was a sinner in worshiping as he did? A sinner who was put in charge of the Inquisition no less. A group that according to Chantry histories were fanatical believers in the Maker. Did they not notice Ameridan's form of worship? Did Drakon not know? Did Ameridan hide it from them? Ameridan certainly knew that Drakon wanted to "simplify" religion, yet Ameridan did not foresee the problems that could arise from this among his own People, even if some of them were quite happy to worship the Maker among their pantheon of gods? I find that hard to believe. Was their friendship built on political expediency rather than genuine respect and affection? That would certainly explain Drakon not doing more to find out what happened to his longstanding "friend". So, I'm sorry, I can't take all this at just face value and swallow it whole as the complete and unquestionable truth because it doesn't make sense. That is why I tend to look behind the narrative for an alternative explanation even if the characters in the game seem incapable of doing so (or rather just aren't allowed to). Incidentally, an oft overlooked codex given with an item that could be bought as an addition to DA2, about the Ash Warriors of Ferelden, says that they had a different version of belief in the Maker, based off their own prophet who believed he was carrying on the mission of converting the tribes after her death. The Ash Warriors reject both the Chantry and their Chant of Light. The Cult of Andraste in Haven also had a different version of the faith. There were definitely different versions of faith in the Maker in the south, other than the one peddled by the Orleisan Chantry. That being the case, there could well be different versions of history but they have done their utmost to suppress them, just as they did alternative versions of their religion.
|
|
inherit
4406
0
Apr 14, 2024 20:52:31 GMT
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Aug 27, 2021 17:13:39 GMT
In case it wasn't clear, this is all a round-about way of saying that, whether they ultimately prove true or not, Gervaise's speculations are entirely valid, and the argument that in-game accounts favour humans is easily explained by the fact that it was in-game humans who wrote them, and challenging Gervaise to find conflicting, "non-biased" sources is ridiculous and pointless when we all know BioWare has deliberately not written any, and that even if Gervaise found such evidence, the goalposts would miraculously shift of their own accord, and that evidence would no longer prove sufficient. Thank you for saying this so much more eloquently than I could. A case in point is the Canticle of Shartan. This was taken out for political reasons. Then Leliana restores it but scholars promptly cast doubt on the existence of Shartan as an actual individual and suggested that the narrative is actually based on an older elven folk tale (how non-elven scholars know this is anyone's guess). So Andrastrians can conveniently ignore the implications contained in the Canticle: that Andraste regarded Shartan as her equal, as the leader of his people as she was hers, and that her victory at the Valarian Fields was entirely due to the intervention of Shartan and his elves and as a consequence Andraste named Shartan her Champion of Freedom; all because he is not a historically authentic person. Convenient huh? And I'm correct about what I'm saying: The Circles were established before the Nevarran Accords (1:20), because otherwise, Drakon wouldn't be able to use them against the darkspawn in the battles leading up to Cumberland (before 1:16). I'm on firmer ground here. The First Divine was named Justinia. Yet the Divine in charge at the time the Circles were established was Ambrosia. Then World of Thedas asserts this was done around the time the Nevarran Accord was signed with the Inquisition/Templar Order in 1:20. Lambeth also asserted the same when writing to Justinia (IV or V) in 9:40; the Circles came into existence with the co-operation and approval of the Templar Order under Chantry Control. When he rejects her authority over the Seekers and Templars, he simultaneously declares the Circles dissolved, at least under control of the Chantry, because the Templars are required for their control and they no longer owe allegiance to her. Before 1:20 whilst the mages were free to circulate in the community, there were strict limits on how they could used their magic or engage in politics. This is why Drakon had to negotiate with the mages to use their magic against the darkspawn once the 2nd Blight began in 1:5. Presumably they weren't happy when the darkspawn threat receded to some extent in Orlais and they were expected to go back to lighting the holy fire in the Grand Cathedral and other trivial purposes. So a deal was done, the Templars came on board and the closed Circles came into existence. (Or at least that is the way Chantry sources tell it). You've committed a basic logical fallacy, and not to mention changed the topic. Andraste's opinion of Shartan was true regardless of whether or not the source is considered orthodox in a religion. That doesn't change the fact that "it happened." By contrast, you are claiming things that "may" have happened as true with no evidence aside from "it doesn't come from humans, so it must be true." Justinia I was Divine at the time of 1:1. At the time of 1:20, Ambrosia is Divine. What you are telling me is that Justinia I had less than 19 years of reign before her death or retirement. How does that put you on "firmer ground."
|
|
inherit
4406
0
Apr 14, 2024 20:52:31 GMT
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Aug 27, 2021 17:14:59 GMT
"It's valid even if it's not true" is no truth. Putting a different interpretation on events is valid. It is rather difficult for me to find sources to totally contradict the Chantry version that I have not already supplied. However, the Core Rule Book was an eye opener for me and not just about the history of the Dales. Most of that material was written around the time of DAO. It is approved by Bioware. To my mind it is the nearest I am going to get to an unbiased source. I suggest you read it some time. BioWARE has already ruled the RPG is not canonical.
|
|
inherit
4406
0
Apr 14, 2024 20:52:31 GMT
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Aug 27, 2021 17:21:45 GMT
"It's valid even if it's not true" is no truth. Okay, here is another example of why I find it hard to take anything in the game as objective truth and why each time they introduced these new aspects of history in JoH, I started questioning everything: How they portray the Andrastrian religion. In the Canticle of Transfigurations that is meant to contain the authentic teaching of Andraste.
The Commandments: (1) These truths the Maker has revealed to me. As there is but one world, one life, one death, there is but one god and He is our Maker. They are sinners who have given their love to false gods.
Now even back in DAI we had the odd situation that when Cassandra was trying to encourage belief in the Maker, Lavellan can respond: "I believe in the elven gods", whereupon Cassandra suggests "Isn't their room in your pantheon for one more." Cassandra has not just committed heresy but blasphemy. Scroll forward to JoH and we find Ameridan offering prayers to Andraste and Ghilan'nain but not the Maker. Cassandra is just mildly surprised at this. Given her previous words to Lavellan, I suppose it is hardly surprising she doesn't point out that Ameridan is also a big fat sinner according to her Chant, for not only still worshiping an elven god but elevating Andraste to godhood as well. Now apparently some of the barbarian tribes continued to worship the Maker as just one of many after Andraste's death. Drakon objected to this and slaughtered anyone who resisted. So what am I to take from this? Are the alleged words of Andraste false and she never asserted monotheism? Thus it was possible to worship the Maker/Andraste/other gods simultaneously, as Ameridan and the barbarian tribes seemed to be doing, but Drakon had his own ideas, probably around one god/one empire/one emperor and changed the Chant to reflect his worldview? Or is the teaching in the Chant authentic and therefore Ameridan was a sinner in worshiping as he did? A sinner who was put in charge of the Inquisition no less. A group that according to Chantry histories were fanatical believers in the Maker. Did they not notice Ameridan's form of worship? Did Drakon not know? Did Ameridan hide it from them? Ameridan certainly knew that Drakon wanted to "simplify" religion, yet Ameridan did not foresee the problems that could arise from this among his own People, even if some of them were quite happy to worship the Maker among their pantheon of gods? I find that hard to believe. Was their friendship built on political expediency rather than genuine respect and affection? That would certainly explain Drakon not doing more to find out what happened to his longstanding "friend". So, I'm sorry, I can't take all this at just face value and swallow it whole as the complete and unquestionable truth because it doesn't make sense. That is why I tend to look behind the narrative for an alternative explanation even if the characters in the game seem incapable of doing so (or rather just aren't allowed to). Incidentally, an oft overlooked codex given with an item that could be bought as an addition to DA2, about the Ash Warriors of Ferelden, says that they had a different version of belief in the Maker, based off their own prophet who believed he was carrying on the mission of converting the tribes after her death. The Ash Warriors reject both the Chantry and their Chant of Light. The Cult of Andraste in Haven also had a different version of the faith. There were definitely different versions of faith in the Maker in the south, other than the one peddled by the Orleisan Chantry. That being the case, there could well be different versions of history but they have done their utmost to suppress them, just as they did alternative versions of their religion. Cassandra committing an act of what you consider heresy is, at worst, a personal failing on her part. It has nothing to do with history. Cassandra is mildly surprised probably due to the fact that the practice was fairly common in the early days of the Chantry, when Ameridan was active. Vivienne mentions it as well, that was the practice back then. Religious practices can change (early Christianity had animal sacrifices) Religious practice changes, as do secular rituals. But that doesn't mean that a source written from that time is not valid. You're also changing the subject haven't mentioned a single thing about what we're talking about. The Alamarri, Cirine, and other tribes worshipped the Maker in polytheistic belief. Drakon objected and went to war. How does that prove "humans can't write history, we must accept sources that defer to the elves." What it seems more like is that because the source comes from the Chantry, and you have a personal animus against it, you treat it as a lying source and treat other sources as more valid. Yet Inquisition showed us how poor the elves were with history: They had no idea what any of their stuff even meant.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 27, 2021 19:04:02 GMT
Andraste's opinion of Shartan was true regardless of whether or not the source is considered orthodox in a religion. That doesn't change the fact that "it happened." Really? The original source of the text was the oral tradition of the Dalish. If you agree that this was a true reflection of what Andraste thought of Shartan, why shouldn't other things the Dalish say be believed? Justinia I was Divine at the time of 1:1. At the time of 1:20, Ambrosia is Divine. What you are telling me is that Justinia I had less than 19 years of reign before her death or retirement. How does that put you on "firmer ground." I said that two different sources, the one concerning Ambrosia being in charge at the time the Circles were created and the entry in World of Thedas, disproved your idea that the Circles were created prior to 1:20. That was why I was on firmer ground, because I was using actual sources to prove that your assumption was wrong.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 27, 2021 19:32:27 GMT
Cassandra is mildly surprised probably due to the fact that the practice was fairly common in the early days of the Chantry, when Ameridan was active. Vivienne mentions it as well, that was the practice back then. Religious practices can change ( early Christianity had animal sacrifices) Religious practice changes, as do secular rituals. But that doesn't mean that a source written from that time is not valid. No it didn't. Not orthodox Christianity. I can't speak for the heretical sects that sprang up. In any case, customs in worship may change but core beliefs do not. I was not talking about Ameridan's manner of offering prayers but who he was acknowledging as a deity. You clearly didn't understand the point I was making. There is a clear contradiction with what the Chantry claim was the faith at that time, which endorsed the actions of Drakon in putting down what he saw as heretical sects, and the faith that Ameridan was openly practicing. If it was normal practice for people of that time to worship other gods in addition to the Maker and for that not to be considered contrary to the beliefs espoused by Andraste, then Drakon or his Divine must have changed the Chant. It quite clearly states that there is only ONE TRUE GOD and that is the Maker. It is a sin to worship any other false god. The first Inquisition were said to be devout believers in following the commandments of the Maker. According to the Chant of Light, the first commandment is that you should only worship the Maker as the only true god. Either that is the teaching of Andraste that should be followed or the Chantry have been preaching and chanting a lie. If the latter, why would the Inquisition surrender their autonomy to Drakon? If the former, why would they accept Ameridan as their leader? It is a paradox that the writers seem oblivious to. So which is the authentic religion, that of Ameridan or that of the Chant of Light? If the Divine can alter the Chant to suit the political whims of the current ruler or herself, which we know from the Canticle of Shartan they have been known to do, how can we believe any of their teaching to be true, whether it be about the authentic religion of Andrastre or secular history? Of course, the actual truth is that the writers change history on a whim to suit the narrative they wish to tell and then use the excuse of the unreliable in-world narrator to explain any anomalies. However, much of the time, I'm just not convinced.
|
|
inherit
4406
0
Apr 14, 2024 20:52:31 GMT
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Aug 27, 2021 19:37:29 GMT
Andraste's opinion of Shartan was true regardless of whether or not the source is considered orthodox in a religion. That doesn't change the fact that "it happened." Really? The original source of the text was the oral tradition of the Dalish. If you agree that this was a true reflection of what Andraste thought of Shartan, why shouldn't other things the Dalish say be believed? Justinia I was Divine at the time of 1:1. At the time of 1:20, Ambrosia is Divine. What you are telling me is that Justinia I had less than 19 years of reign before her death or retirement. How does that put you on "firmer ground." I said that two different sources, the one concerning Ambrosia being in charge at the time the Circles were created and the entry in World of Thedas, disproved your idea that the Circles were created prior to 1:20. That was why I was on firmer ground, because I was using actual sources to prove that your assumption was wrong. The Dalish stories of Shartan varied from clan to clan, as all oral traditions do. Remember, it was Justinia I who transcribed the actual text. Unless you're going to tell me ALL of the separate Dalish traditions are true? Oral tradition is easily wrong. As I said before, the elves are notoriously bad at remembering their history. Or do you need another reminder about the Evanuris. What assumption was I making at the time? Not only do your pieces of information not contradict anything, they add nothing at all. The only thing you've described is that the first fantasy Pope had a reign shorter than 20 years. That can happen. Further, the mages were already separated from the people in the first place due to the fact that mages are trained by mages away from people. It may not have been the actual "Circle of Magi" definition, it's just whatever organization the mages had before that point. More than likely, it was adapted from whatever Tevinter used. Remember, the First Inquisition hunted mages and mage groups. In fact, it was the fact that magic was useful against the darkspawn that they leveraged to create the Circle system in the first place.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 27, 2021 19:53:02 GMT
Yet Inquisition showed us how poor the elves were with history: They had no idea what any of their stuff even meant. Actually it was surprising how much of the stuff they got right, considering much of it was meant to be based on just vaguely remembered oral traditions and bits and pieces they found from ruins. You could just as easily point out how much of history the Chant of Light got wrong, bearing in mind it totally missed out the history of the elves and dwarves prior to the arrival of the humans, suggesting the material world was created specifically for the human race and implying the Veil had always existed. That was a pretty big gap in every racial memory, except as it turns out the legends of the Avvar that seem to recall the heavenly city of the gods being cut off from the world of mortals. Funny that, considering they were an offshoot of the Alamarri after the Veil was created, so you would think Andraste would have been familiar with that legend too, particularly considering that Maferath was an Avvar. Also, I don't know if you picked up on another line from the Chant that has been disproved by the writers subsequently. "As there is but one world, one life, one death". Not only do the Avvar believe that souls can be reborn but Mythal actually pulled it off with Flemeth. Even if it wasn't true rebirth as such, it definitely was a new life for an ancient being after her first death. Solas also said that he didn't kill the other Evanuris because you can never be sure that they will stay dead. So where does that leave that statement to Andraste from the Maker?
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 27, 2021 20:24:42 GMT
Oral tradition is easily wrong. Oral tradition can also be extremely accurate if the whole meaning of your life is to ensure it is passed on faithfully. You show the same lack of respect for oral tradition that many people do who have grown up in a written tradition. Manuscripts can be copied down incorrectly, words accidentally missed out or deliberately altered. By contrast, where a person, or group of people, within the community is charged with memorising a particular history and then ensuring it is passed on accurately to the next generation, the content can be very true to the original source. That, in fact, is the essence of what the Dalish are attempting to do and they have two members of the clan who are responsible for this, the Keeper and the Storyteller. Ancient history is only inaccurate because it was vague and fragmented in the first place. More recent history does not suffer from the same problem. The story of the foundation of the Dales would be common to them all, as would the memory of the leader who earned it for them. This would still have been a relatively recent memory that had been passed on across a limited number of generations at the time it was recorded by the Chantry scribes. The Dalish stories of Shartan varied from clan to clan, as all oral traditions do. Where did you get this idea from? The prologue to the Canticle says how it was an oral tradition until Justinia asked her scribes to write it down. The rest of the speculation is just the writers trying to be clever in making us have doubts about Shartan through the apparent studies of scholars on the matter. Yet previously we met his shade, Sister Petrine also seemed to confirm his existence, with a slightly different but on the whole a version of history that agrees with the Dalish one. I wonder, did she get her version from a different clan, or somewhere else? Anyway, that does suggest that Shartan was a real person. Why would Maferath have felt duty bound to abide by Andraste's promise if he were not? And I'm correct about what I'm saying: The Circles were established before the Nevarran Accords (1:20), because otherwise, Drakon wouldn't be able to use them against the darkspawn in the battles leading up to Cumberland (before 1:16). This is what I keep referring back to and this statement is incorrect. World of Thedas quite clearly states that the first Circles were established as a result of the Nevarran Accord. This was also stated in the novel Asunder by Lambert. I also pointed out that it could not have been until the reign of Divine Ambrosia, so could not have been when Drakon was first negotiating with the mages at the start of the Blight because Justinia was still alive then.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 20, 2024 10:24:31 GMT
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Aug 27, 2021 21:06:51 GMT
So...what does this have to do with Solas or his plans?
|
|
inherit
11247
0
1,639
Buckeldemon
Now stealin' more kidz.
1,200
July 2019
buckeldemon
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Buckeldemon on Aug 27, 2021 21:25:24 GMT
So...what does this have to do with Solas or his plans? Look up how it started. Anti-Solas attitude mixed up with anti-elf attitude. Than came the enjoyers of victim-blaming with a dose of andrastian apologism (or willful ignorance) and some of these started trolling.
|
|
inherit
4406
0
Apr 14, 2024 20:52:31 GMT
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Aug 27, 2021 21:35:14 GMT
Yet Inquisition showed us how poor the elves were with history: They had no idea what any of their stuff even meant. Actually it was surprising how much of the stuff they got right, considering much of it was meant to be based on just vaguely remembered oral traditions and bits and pieces they found from ruins. You could just as easily point out how much of history the Chant of Light got wrong, bearing in mind it totally missed out the history of the elves and dwarves prior to the arrival of the humans, suggesting the material world was created specifically for the human race and implying the Veil had always existed. That was a pretty big gap in every racial memory, except as it turns out the legends of the Avvar that seem to recall the heavenly city of the gods being cut off from the world of mortals. Funny that, considering they were an offshoot of the Alamarri after the Veil was created, so you would think Andraste would have been familiar with that legend too, particularly considering that Maferath was an Avvar. Also, I don't know if you picked up on another line from the Chant that has been disproved by the writers subsequently. "As there is but one world, one life, one death". Not only do the Avvar believe that souls can be reborn but Mythal actually pulled it off with Flemeth. Even if it wasn't true rebirth as such, it definitely was a new life for an ancient being after her first death. Solas also said that he didn't kill the other Evanuris because you can never be sure that they will stay dead. So where does that leave that statement to Andraste from the Maker? "It's horribly wrong, but they at least managed something right" isn't really anything of an accomplishment. Traditions also change. There's no reason to believe the traditions of the Avvar are the same in the modern day as they were when Maferath was alive. If the Chant is the human's historical codex, then why would they have a history of elves and dwarves before the arrival of humans? As for the parts with the Veil, humans might not have even existed at that point. They could hardly have a tradition. You do know that the "Heavenly City cut off from the world of Mortals" is almost an exact representation of the Black/Golden City, right? As for Mythal, what is Mythal? Did she die? Was death the same for an ancient elf? Considering life wasn't the same, death, maybe not.
|
|
inherit
4406
0
Apr 14, 2024 20:52:31 GMT
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Aug 27, 2021 21:37:37 GMT
Oral tradition is easily wrong. Oral tradition can also be extremely accurate if the whole meaning of your life is to ensure it is passed on faithfully. You show the same lack of respect for oral tradition that many people do who have grown up in a written tradition. Manuscripts can be copied down incorrectly, words accidentally missed out or deliberately altered. By contrast, where a person, or group of people, within the community is charged with memorising a particular history and then ensuring it is passed on accurately to the next generation, the content can be very true to the original source. That, in fact, is the essence of what the Dalish are attempting to do and they have two members of the clan who are responsible for this, the Keeper and the Storyteller. Ancient history is only inaccurate because it was vague and fragmented in the first place. More recent history does not suffer from the same problem. The story of the foundation of the Dales would be common to them all, as would the memory of the leader who earned it for them. This would still have been a relatively recent memory that had been passed on across a limited number of generations at the time it was recorded by the Chantry scribes. The Dalish stories of Shartan varied from clan to clan, as all oral traditions do. Where did you get this idea from? The prologue to the Canticle says how it was an oral tradition until Justinia asked her scribes to write it down. The rest of the speculation is just the writers trying to be clever in making us have doubts about Shartan through the apparent studies of scholars on the matter. Yet previously we met his shade, Sister Petrine also seemed to confirm his existence, with a slightly different but on the whole a version of history that agrees with the Dalish one. I wonder, did she get her version from a different clan, or somewhere else? Anyway, that does suggest that Shartan was a real person. Why would Maferath have felt duty bound to abide by Andraste's promise if he were not? And I'm correct about what I'm saying: The Circles were established before the Nevarran Accords (1:20), because otherwise, Drakon wouldn't be able to use them against the darkspawn in the battles leading up to Cumberland (before 1:16). This is what I keep referring back to and this statement is incorrect. World of Thedas quite clearly states that the first Circles were established as a result of the Nevarran Accord. This was also stated in the novel Asunder by Lambert. I also pointed out that it could not have been until the reign of Divine Ambrosia, so could not have been when Drakon was first negotiating with the mages at the start of the Blight because Justinia was still alive then. The elves prided themselves on oral tradition. And they botched it horribly. We made a ghost that calls himself Shartan. There's no reason to believe it's actually him, considering he died in Tevinter, not the Frostbacks. Further, you're not understanding the point, which is why I think you cut off the statements. With multiple oral traditions, they can't all be true. There was an organization of mages. Whatever it was called, they negotiated as a group.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 20, 2024 10:24:31 GMT
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Aug 27, 2021 21:44:39 GMT
So...what does this have to do with Solas or his plans? Look up how it started. Anti-Solas attitude mixed up with anti-elf attitude. Than came the enjoyers of victim-blaming with a dose of andrastian apologism (or willful ignorance) and some of these started trolling. I know, but this has gone on long enough I’d think. Clearly neither side is going to budge, and it keeps moving further from the topic.
|
|
inherit
2210
0
Apr 20, 2024 13:53:10 GMT
4,675
dadithinkimgay
1,282
Nov 29, 2016 19:15:03 GMT
November 2016
dadithinkimgay
|
Post by dadithinkimgay on Aug 27, 2021 22:56:31 GMT
It's very clear that Thedosian history as we know it is incorrect. People, places, and events have completely been misconstrued. One could argue "they did this, they did that,", but without the finer details, and honestly, without being there, we can't say for certain what it all meant. Okay, the elves didn't help during the second blight. Who said that, what do the elves have to say about that, and what actually happened? This concept is similar to the tale of The Dread Wolf. Yeah, The Dread Wolf did seal away both parties of gods. But we later learned that it wasn't with evil intentions. Even with that, there's still a lot of story to be told about that event.
Andrastian, elven, and Dwarven faiths were completely flipped on their asses in the events during Inquisition and its DLC's. Why should we believe anything The Chantry, The Elves, and even the Dwarves say about anything? These stories are told by people in power. It only takes one person in power to completely erase years of history. The Dwarves literally erased their Gods form their history. History being inaccurate is a common and running theme for Dragon Age, particularly in Inquisition. We need to and should question it, based on that. And it's fun to do so. That's the point. That's why the writers build the world in the way they do. It creates a whole lot of intrigue. Does it make our theories right? No. But I'd argue that the history written by the oppressor (The Chantry) certainly isn't correct either. We really can't say for certain what is correct and we certainly shouldn't be looking to The Chantry for that. And the correct answer? It's just messy and complicated.
|
|
inherit
4406
0
Apr 14, 2024 20:52:31 GMT
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Aug 28, 2021 0:29:20 GMT
Sure, interesting. History can often be wrong. However, I'm of the opinion that historical data is not more reliable based on "oppressor" and "oppressed" class, and that the "oppressed" is always right.
|
|
inherit
3555
0
Apr 14, 2022 23:07:25 GMT
11,193
gaycaravaggio
Oy Gay
2,940
February 2017
gaycaravaggio
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by gaycaravaggio on Aug 28, 2021 2:54:02 GMT
I think often, it's less "this oral account passed down is always 100% true" and more that the specific versions of the oral account passed down say more about their interpretation of historical events, which honestly is still pretty useful from a historical perspective.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 28, 2021 7:38:57 GMT
If the Chant is the human's historical codex, then why would they have a history of elves and dwarves before the arrival of humans? The Chant is meant to be giving an account of the creation of Thedas. It starts with just the Maker and the spirits in heaven. Then the Maker creates the earth, separates it from the Fade (with the Veil) and populates it with humans. This is meant to be what the Wellspring of All imparted to Andraste as the origin of all things, which it clearly isn't and simply reflects a human orientated take on the world. It would make sense if that was a human tradition that Andraste was already familiar with that she was passing on but that is not the claim. It is meant to be divine revelation by the creator of all things. That is what I meant.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 28, 2021 7:43:15 GMT
I know, but this has gone on long enough I’d think. Clearly neither side is going to budge, and it keeps moving further from the topic. I thought how people view the elves was on topic. It definitely seems to me that there are some people who do not have a problem with us killing large numbers of elves next game because "they deserve it" and are "stupid", particularly the Dalish who I fear are being set up by the writers for wholesale destruction. That is what I am objecting to. However, I appreciate you are not one of those people, so what would you like to discuss next?
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 20, 2024 10:24:31 GMT
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Aug 28, 2021 7:50:50 GMT
I know, but this has gone on long enough I’d think. Clearly neither side is going to budge, and it keeps moving further from the topic. I thought how people view the elves was on topic. It definitely seems to me that there are some people who do not have a problem with us killing large numbers of elves next game because "they deserve it" and are "stupid", particularly the Dalish who I fear are being set up by the writers for wholesale destruction. That is what I am objecting to. However, I appreciate you are not one of those people, so what would you like to discuss next? I sense we’ll be doing wholesale destruction on a lot of people. A lot of elves because many are supporting a madman who wants to commit utter genocide, a lot of elves because they’re just mindless brutes now for some reason, a lot of humans because human nature, and for dwarves I dunno maybe Kal-Sharok is all red lyrium so they’re controlled or something. Well, to better merge the two topics and address your concern, do you think there will be a way to expose Solas to his followers where they no longer support him without wiping them out? We have been able to do that before in the series, like some of Loghain’s supporters like Cauthrien or the Wardens in DAI. If so, how?
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,661
gervaise21
10,778
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 28, 2021 8:21:06 GMT
Andrastian, elven, and Dwarven faiths were completely flipped on their asses in the events during Inquisition and its DLC's. Why should we believe anything The Chantry, The Elves, and even the Dwarves say about anything? These stories are told by people in power. It only takes one person in power to completely erase years of history. The Dwarves literally erased their Gods form their history. History being inaccurate is a common and running theme for Dragon Age, particularly in Inquisition. We need to and should question it, based on that. Just the fact that the Veil is a construct that altered reality was pretty mind boggling to me. That it was the creation of just one elven mage also seemed rather incredible. I could just about accept that the loss of magic and immortality could have caused the elven amnesia about the Veil, even though they apparently remember the rest of the salient facts like the gods being shut away by Fen'Harel yet not how he did it or the nature of magic being changed as a result. After all, tranquil seem to suffer a degree of memory loss when cut off from the Fade: Pharamond said it was like living in a dream detached from the world, which is ironic considering they are cut of from the Land of Dreams. What I've always found rather odd is why the other races seem not to remember the change in reality either. However, the Avvar certainly seem to have some sort of recollection of the event in the legends, suggesting their ancestors did actually witness it. There were also strong hints in the Descent that the Memories may have been tampered with or perhaps the Memories in Orzammaar are incomplete because that wasn't the original capital of the dwarven empire. In Trespasser the lullaby the Dalish convert to the Qun tried to recall in his diary seemed to suggest that Mythal may have done something to the dwarves to make them forget the Titans. If anything their memories were partially restored by the Veil destroying much that had been done with elven magic, or may be it was Mythal's death, so the dwarves remembered the Stone in a more abstract way, without remembering the actual creatures they had a connection to. Is the reason dwarves can't do magic due to being cut off from the Titans? Constant proximity to lyrium, through their mining of it, is said to be what gives them their resistance to magic. That seems connected in some way to the way the lyrium brand works on mages. Like tranquil, dwarves allegedly do not experience dreams or have any mental contact with the Fade. Didn't OGB Kieran also say the dwarves were lacking something through not being connected with the Titans? That's why I'm hoping we go to Kal-Sharok next game and turn up some new information on the dwarves there. I'm pretty sure the reason they destroyed Cad'Halash for helping the elves fleeing the war with Tevinter had more to it than simply not wanting to upset their trading partners. Tevinter relied on the dwarves for lyrium, so were hardly likely to break off relations through the actions of one solitary thaig. Also, the fact that Solas predicts the same demise for the dwarves as he does for everyone else suggests that dropping the Veil will have more impact than simply the fact of giving free access to demons on the world. The dwarves have been around probably just as long as the elves. Their civilisation is separate from that of the humans, so he is not talking merely about a change in the political structure. If removing the Veil will cleanse the world of the blight, the dwarves would be major beneficiaries of that. So why would removing the Veil have such dire consequences for them and not for the modern elves? When talking to a human mage, "your people" could equally apply to mages as it does humans generally, so possession of magic doesn't seem the answer. It seems far more likely the wholesale destruction the Veil will cause will be as bad for everyone who isn't protected from the consequences. So may be it is simply that only those favoured few who have joined the Dread Wolf will survive, probably through being supplied with these floating aravels. If you look at what is happening to the landscape behind, that doesn't bode well for anyone actually on the surface, or beneath it. It doesn't explain his words to Charter though.
|
|
inherit
11247
0
1,639
Buckeldemon
Now stealin' more kidz.
1,200
July 2019
buckeldemon
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Buckeldemon on Aug 28, 2021 8:57:51 GMT
I know, but this has gone on long enough I’d think. Clearly neither side is going to budge, and it keeps moving further from the topic. I thought how people view the elves was on topic. It definitely seems to me that there are some people who do not have a problem with us killing large numbers of elves next game because "they deserve it" and are "stupid", particularly the Dalish who I fear are being set up by the writers for wholesale destruction. That is what I am objecting to. However, I appreciate you are not one of those people, so what would you like to discuss next? Yeah, it is... a bit funny how some are ready to overlook more or less obvious cases of "idiot ball" and induced chance for victim-blaming and then working it into their... arguments regardless.
I mean, Hanako did ignore pre-Red Crossing context, participated in shouting any attempts at that down and then turned around and went for a "warstarter" gotcha (not for the first time ever, I might add). Apart from the ridiculous narrow take on the mourning Halla. I haven't seen any response on "Dalish need to pay for their crimes!!!" demand yet either. (For the record, I don't really expect anything meaningful from duskwanderer in that regard. Strawman-level mischaracterisation of other's statements, demand for inverted selectiveness of sources sprinkled with a dose of obnoxiousness doesn't count).
|
|