Talk:Vallaslin

Slave Marking?!?

So according to solas these are slave marking of some kind, and i am speculating that the differing designs are related to organizations such as large clans or institutions in the old elven empire(s). How do we put them into the article?--FossilLord 04:23, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's apparently what Arlathan vallaslin were in Arlathan, although the meaning of the symbols changed after the People appropriated them as a symbol of defiance against the humans who wanted them to convert to the Chantry and surrender their traditions and culture, after the fall of the Dales. Lobsel Vith (talk) 01:51, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Solas confirms they were honoring ancient gods, whatever said gods actually were (Solas doesn't believe in elven gods' divinity but that's according to his personal definition; powerful immortal being someone prays to seems to be pretty god-ish by common understanding) so I'd say they're related to gods rather than more abstract organizations. Their meaning as slave markings, however, is another matter. We can safely assume that was their meaning back them while, obviously, it's not what they mean now. In fact someone could punch Solas in the face and point out that now young Dalish choose their favourite god to have his/her mark on their faces as their first adult decision - it could be very well seen (in light of the old meaning) as a declaration along the lines of "as an adult I'm my own master now" - and it's not impossible that modern vallaslin actually started this way before "details" like slavery in Elvhenan became completely forgotten.

Either way, I think a note about their meaning in Arlathan (the one we have now) is pretty much all we need in the article. And all we can actually safely include - any ideas of how old vallaslin became new vallaslin and what was its status in old Tevinter as well as in elven Dales - it's all pure speculation. For all we know the Dalish could've picked vallaslin up again only after the fall of the Dales, with any reference to old meaning all but forgotten by then.

Perhaps we should drop the part: "--signs of ownership--when noble elves enslaved the lower classes" though - I don't think we have a source for "enslaving lower classes", we just know there were slaves, most of ancient elven social structure remains a mystery. 78.9.1.54 (talk) 17:50, January 9, 2015 (UTC)Eliastion

Solas didn't give a in depth history

We can only assume what they mean. I think it is like when you buy a cow and you brand them, and the brand corresponds to who owns them. The markings probably represent different houses in the ancient Imperium. I say keep it vague where they came from as we only know that they were used to mark slaves, and nothing else.

Design Headings

So I matched most of the older designs to the new ones in Inquisition, and added the deities they correspond to. Design 6 and 8, however, I'm not 100% sure about. My guess is that 8 is Dirthamen and 6 is Ghilan'nain, but again, I'm not too certain.

I must disagree. Dirthamen is most definitely old design 6, regardless of how close it looks to that supposedly representing Ghilan'nain in DA:I. It's just a guess but one I'm fairly certain about - central point of this design is literally a drawing of an open book, who else could possibly have this one? I'm not sure how exactly did you connect old design 7 to new design of Mythal. It's nothing alike and it doesn't seem to fit Mythal either. The old design seems to be either a bird (but bird-related gods, Dirthamen, Falon'Din and Andruil have easily identified corresponding designs) or some more-or-less abstract pattern that could perhaps be tied to horns of a halla. Basically, assuming the source about inquisition patterns as binding, I'd suggest: 1 - June (very similar to Inquisition's pattern) 2 - Elgar'nan (obviously the same desing as alternate for DA:I) 3 - Falon'Din (again, similar) 4 - Andruil (as above) 5 - Sylaise (seems solid) 6 - Dirthamen (design completely changed, but the old had a book in it) 7 - Ghilan'nain (much more subtle and less birdy than old but there is a bit of paralel with those twisting patterns 8 - Mythal (got much subtler and more complicated in new design but it did have some treeish feel to it--78.10.236.120 (talk) 23:52, January 5, 2015 (UTC)Eliastion

• Yes, you're right; 7 is not Mythal. I saw the under-eye patterns for design 7 (old) and just assumed it matched the new ones. Now that I look at it closely, the forehead pattern on design 7 is near identical to the crow/raven found on the new Dirthamen vallaslin - except it's coloured black. So, I believe 6 is actually Dirthamen. Which leaves 6 and 8. I do think 6 looks more like a tree than 8, with the thick centre line representing the trunk, and 8 being slightly more antlerly(?). --KeladinStorm (talk) 00:54, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Were the Origins ones ever confirmed? Now if you take a look at the new Mythal design from Inquisition you can't help but to notice Origin designs (6&7) of Dirthamen and Mythal are the wrong way around. The similarities are more obvious between DAI's Mythal design and the design number 7. The shape is more similar: the undereye branches are apparent in both the designs as well as the root-like pattern on the chin. The patter also resembles a great of the mask on the shield, Mythal's Blessing. Design 6 is as softly shaped as DAI's Dirthamen design. While the cheek pattern is slightly misslocated between the designs, they share more similarities than with design 7. Not to mention how Dirthamen would better suit personalities of some of the characters (Zathrian, maybe even Tamlen) under the label of design 7 93.106.115.243 (talk) 20:03, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that Velanna & Seranni's tattoo design isn't totally unique but a variant of the Dirthamen design, just with the two large shapes that make up a sort of split-"V" are omitted. 86.133.24.41 (talk) 23:00, January 7, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to follow blindly visual similarities between DA:O and DA:I designs. I don't really see a tree in old design 6 while I DEFINITELY see a book on the forehead - though it might not be apparent on scaled down versions. Just look at Zathrian's forehead up close - you can't miss this element. I understand the book didn't look all that well and they walked away from it - but it's definitely there and there is no other god that could fit any interpretation of this particular symbol. So Design 6 must be Dirthamen. When we connect those two, we end up with tangling lines of design 7 that resemble Ghilan'nain and what could pass for stylized branches in design 8. Those 2 I'm not that certain, but old design 6 really leaves little to interpretation. And then, of coure there are the confirmed bearers of those markings (even if what the elf chooses when coming of age doesn't really need to reflect on entirety of his life):

• Zathrian would really suit Dirthamen well, and then there's Tamlen, too curious for his own good.
• Neither Mithra nor Panowen don't seem like scholary types at all.
• Old Merril (clan's first), a storyteller, halla keeper, some assassin - those four seem like an odd bunch to favor Ghilan'nain while they would all fit pretty neatly under Mythal's banner, seeing multiple interpretations of the latter

So, to summarize: Design 6 is Dirthamen, that one is fairly certain despite huge change in design between DA:O and DA:I. Sylaise's change was no smaller, though, especially with that smaller version that made it to the game Design 7 seems more likely to be Ghilan'nain than Mythal mostly by elimination, since Design 8 is a bit tree-like, it has sharp edges that fit a tree but not halla's horns AND is seen on people that would fit Mythal (with diversity of interpretation she gets) but not really Ghilan'nain...

78.9.1.54 (talk) 19:55, January 8, 2015 (UTC)Eliastion

I'm fairly confident that Design 7 is Dirthamen. The old forehead design on Mithra is a parallel of the raven/crow design on the new one. --KeladinStorm (talk) 21:34, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

The new one seems more like an owl, not raven and, as I said, blindly linking them together just because the older one can be viewed as a bird isn't a good idea. If we didn't have a clear indication as to what was the old Dirthamen's design, then it would be another matter. It is, however, not the case. We have a book, as bookish as an ornamental tattoo can be, while the bird could really end up not being one after all (the old one, I mean, the Dirthamen's bird is pretty obvious). How do you see a book being linked to any god other than Dirthamen? 78.9.1.54 (talk) 22:04, January 8, 2015 (UTC)Eliastion

What book? Nothing in the tattoo resembles anything like a book. All I'm seeing is the emblem on Mythal's Blessing. EDIT: Wrongg Vallaslin, my bad. I was refereing to Desing 7. I can see the book in design 6. EDIT 2: As for design 7 being Ghilan'nain, I yet again disagree. I have already listed everything I have on Design 7 being Mythal. To prove Design 8 to be Ghilan'nain, I unfortunately have nothing to use save progress of elimination and the fact that most Halla keepers (Elora, for example) use Design 8.93.106.115.243 (talk) 22:13, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that if we don't have a positive canon confirmation of the Origins tattoos then we shouldn't try to classify them ourselves. That just runs too much into speculation, regardless of how obvious some of the designs might seem. And some of these aren't similar enough to each other to positively say they're the same god. I think we should revert to just labeling the Origins designs by numbers and then place the Inquisition ones in a separate section, and label those with the known gods. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 22:23, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. With some of these designs, we're like the blind men trying to feel an elephant. Separating the Origins/DAII from Inquisition seems like the best compromise for now.--KeladinStorm (talk) 22:39, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

I agree, regardless of what the final conclusion would be, it wouldn't be unanimous in at least three cases out of eight. Seperating Inquisition designs from the old ones seems like the best solution for now. Less information is better than false information, after all, and by making a call ourselves we would risk providing the latter 78.9.1.54 (talk) 17:29, January 9, 2015 (UTC)Eliastion

I disagree, because it is pretty obvious that the two are the same tattoos. Keep in mind that Dragon Age changed its art style when transitioning into DA2 so in all extent this is the same tattoo we see in Inquisition, just the ruddy art style changed. --Tesla Effect (talk) 02:41, January 10, 2015 (UTC)