159 réponses à ce sujet

[Raiil]

I don't know about outright power, since the Chantry can't override the King/Queen's command to take Anders and what have you. I think what they have is a boatload of political influence and tradition on their side. I don't know if anyone remembers hearing about the crap that went down when JFK was elected POTUS, and there was the question of whether he'd be led around by the Pope? I see it like that. Obviously the Pope can't rule the US but he could have had a strong influence in policy by virtue of being leader of the President's religion.

[Sarah1281]

That was far more anti-Catholic propaganda than a reasonable fear. The Catholic Church of today or back in the sixties isn't anywhere near as powerful or influential as it was in medieval times or as the Chantry appears to be.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Valentia X wrote...

I don't know about outright power, since the Chantry can't override the King/Queen's command to take Anders and what have you.

Actually, the Chantry can't override the Right of Conscription. The King/ Queen reminds the Templars that the Wardens still have that right. So technically, it's the Warden Commander who overrides the Chantry and not the King / Queen perse. He / she only confirms your own choice. In fact the king / queern explicitly say that nothing can be done unless the Warden commander wants to add soemthing (the right of conscirption).

The Chantry has declared exalted marches on the tevinter Imperium for having a heretical interpretation of the same religion. Technicaly, all Andrastian nations (save Tevinter) are obligated to join in an exalted march. That's a lot of political power.

Not to mention that no one can deal in Lyrium trade. And that King Cailan had to ask for the permission to have mages and they only gave him 7.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 avril 2010 - 07:10 .

[Raiil]

Yes, good point. I don't know. I still feel it's influence- extremely strong influence, but... I admit to be very meh on the Chantry, and I think if they had real power in Ferelden, they'd execute heathens and heretics and generally be a lot more like Ferdinand and Isabella Spain than not.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Valentia X wrote...

Yes, good point. I don't know. I still feel it's influence- extremely strong influence, but... I admit to be very meh on the Chantry, and I think if they had real power in Ferelden, they'd execute heathens and heretics and generally be a lot more like Ferdinand and Isabella Spain than not.

I am not suggesting that the Chantry has absolute control over all nations.
What I've argued is that the Chantry does have a lot of political power and that some of its power directly restrict the power of kings and queens.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 avril 2010 - 07:21 .

[Raiil]

Hmmm. I can see where you're coming from, and I think this is where we agree to disagree. I think it's mostly tradition that keeps things the way they are. If the King or Queen should ever feel the need to do so, they could probably usurp the lyrium trade- it's just dangerous since most of Thedas is Andrastian, at least as far as we've seen, and you don't want to rock the boat, as it were.





I read somewhere, but I could be wrong, that the Chantry's position in Ferelden had been weakened by their earlier support of Orlais. I think the Chantry's hold, while ironclad at the moment, could be toppled for the right motivations.





But! That's just me.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
In Ferelden, something like that couldn´t happen. If the Chantry would declare Loghain a heretic he would simply expell them and continue ruling (at least until the good old warden ends his reign:devil:).

The Chantry would simply declare an exalted march on Ferelden.

The original point was that the Chantry does have a lot of political power. You claimed that it doesn't.

Maybe. But it has no official power, and it would not risk a war against a people that mainly follows its religion.

[Addai]

traversc wrote...

Yes, but there are plenty of situations where you CAN'T.  For example, the entire sacred ashes event was badly contrived.  You're either completely reverent of the ashes or an EVIL CULTIST. 

??  None of my elven characters are "completely reverent," but they don't defile the ashes, either.  My PCs see it as securing Redcliffe's help.  If they have to go on the goose chase in order to convince Teagan that he has to step in and take charge, that's what they have to do.

I feel like I'm talking to Sten.  LOL

[soignee]

Addai67 wrote...

traversc wrote...

Yes, but there are plenty of situations where you CAN'T.  For example, the entire sacred ashes event was badly contrived.  You're either completely reverent of the ashes or an EVIL CULTIST. 

??  None of my elven characters are "completely reverent," but they don't defile the ashes, either.  My PCs see it as securing Redcliffe's help.  If they have to go on the goose chase in order to convince Teagan that he has to step in and take charge, that's what they have to do.

I feel like I'm talking to Sten.  LOL

That was my dwarfie's take on it too, even if my Brosca was flipping tables and stuff about having to endure "chantry droning" in the process.

[Tirigon]

Addai67 wrote...

traversc wrote...

Yes, but there are plenty of situations where you CAN'T.  For example, the entire sacred ashes event was badly contrived.  You're either completely reverent of the ashes or an EVIL CULTIST. 

??  None of my elven characters are "completely reverent," but they don't defile the ashes, either.  My PCs see it as securing Redcliffe's help.  If they have to go on the goose chase in order to convince Teagan that he has to step in and take charge, that's what they have to do.

I feel like I'm talking to Sten.  LOL

You can defile the ashes AND kill the Cultists and the dragon afterwards. Best way to go ;-)

[thegreateski]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Jawson . . . most atheist you meet are actually "Deists"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Um... no. I don't think so. Most atheists I meet are certainly atheists. Of course there are people who confuse terms, and don't understand what an atheist is, and mistakenly call themselves atheist, but those are in the minority.

Was I talking to you?

No. I was not.

[Mlai00]

Yes ppl take Andraste's name in vain. Doesn't mean she's not real to them, like gravity and dog hair. The Chant is not a religion/philosophy as you understand it. It's FACT.

As such, when you give the player the option to respectfully disagree, you're giving them an anachronistic illusion. The writer should/would not want that! He's writing his world, and he doesn't need you to muck it up with your anachronistic POVs.

(The dwarf saying EPIC FAIL is a f-up on the writer's part, though.)

You can't have every option you want, because the writer does have to guide you somewhat. He has to drill it into your head, that the only reason you would openly voice your dissent is if you got up on the wrong side of the bed, and is itching for a confrontation.

[SnakeStrike8]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

This is something that bugs me about the game - while the dialog options allow paths that don't have you nodding along with the Chantry, they all tend to be abbrasive. It's not really possible to play the respectful atheist, the sort of thing I'd like to consider myself in real life.

So, for example, in Lothering, talking to the big boss of the Chantry there, she asks for a tithe - you have dialog options for saying you can't afford it, and another one to the effect of "Tithe to the Chantry? Are you kidding?" - all other options have you paying up.

Why not an option to the effect of "I appreciate the work you do to help people, but I don't want to fund the spreding of a faith I don't share"?

It seems that the game thinks that if you are an atheist, you must be abbrasive and confrontational.

Also, in the dwarven city, if you help the Chantry to set up shop there, and go to the new chantry to talk to the dwarf that set it up, you're given two dialogue options - either something like "I serve only the Maker" or "I'd better get a plackard on the door". In other words, you've got the choise of appearing a religious fanatic, or an arrogant ******.

What about: "I don't share the beliefs of the Chantry, but I do believe in freedom of expression - ideas should not be censored for being untraditional."?

I don't get it. If you "appreciate the work you do to help people,", then why don't you donate to the Chantry? It's not like they'll use the thirty silvers you give them to build a monastery on the outskirts of Lothering. They'll use it to feed the refugees that are streaming in. Even if you don't share the faith, surely you can appreciate the need to help people in desperate times with coin.
And if you help the Orzammar heretic- er, missionary, establish his Chantry in the city, then you're helping spread the beliefs of that faith by default. If you don't believe in it, then don't help spread it. That dwarf's already got the freedom of expression. He's standing on the street corner greeting people with Chantrific platitudes. No-one socked him or locked him up, and if you help him put in his Chantry, then you're just increasing the reach of his faith.

[traversc]

Tirigon wrote...

You can defile the ashes AND kill the Cultists and the dragon afterwards. Best way to go ;-)

Yep, but then Wynne and Leliana kill themselves. 

??  None of my elven characters are "completely reverent," but they
don't defile the ashes, either.  My PCs see it as securing Redcliffe's
help.  If they have to go on the goose chase in order to convince Teagan
that he has to step in and take charge, that's what they have to do.

Regardless of whether you are reverent of the ashes, you are not given the dialogue option to dissent.  Your entire party is like "ZOMG ashes!!1 so amazing."  The fact that you can say nothing to disagree with them (besides poisoning the ashes) CAN be construed as implicitly agreeing.  Of course, you can roleplay whatever you like and pretend that your character simply chooses not to express disagreement.  But you are not given the choice - and that's the entire point of this thread.  Lack of choice. 

Edit: Oh, and whether or not you take the ashes for Redcliffe has nothing to do with the issue.

Modifié par traversc, 18 avril 2010 - 05:25 .

[Addai]

traversc wrote...

??  None of my elven characters are "completely reverent," but they
don't defile the ashes, either.  My PCs see it as securing Redcliffe's
help.  If they have to go on the goose chase in order to convince Teagan
that he has to step in and take charge, that's what they have to do.

Regardless of whether you are reverent of the ashes, you are not given the dialogue option to dissent.  Your entire party is like "ZOMG ashes!!1 so amazing."  The fact that you can say nothing to disagree with them (besides poisoning the ashes) CAN be construed as implicitly agreeing. 

Apparently you only take Leliana, Wynne and Alistair with you.  Try taking Morrigan and Sten next time.  And saying nothing does not imply agreement or disagreement.

Of course, you can roleplay whatever you like and pretend that your character simply chooses not to express disagreement.  But you are not given the choice - and that's the entire point of this thread.  Lack of choice. 

I really think it is a plea for attention rather than a legitimate complaint about the game.  No doubt there are pastafarians who wish that there were dialogue choices to accommadate their unique take on the Chant, too.

Edit: Oh, and whether or not you take the ashes for Redcliffe has nothing to do with the issue.

I refer to why you are there in the first place and why you take the ashes.  It need not express any reverence for them.  It is a) to satisfy Teagan that even if Eamon does not recover, he needs to take charge, and get his crazy Andrastian SIL off his back and calling back the knights to fight the darkspawn.

Because we are sent off to find Branka, does that mean we ascribe to the dwarves' beliefs about paragons and ancestors?  I think not.

Modifié par Addai67, 18 avril 2010 - 05:32 .

[UpiH]

Mlai00 wrote...

Yes ppl take Andraste's name in vain. Doesn't mean she's not real to them, like gravity and dog hair. The Chant is not a religion/philosophy as you understand it. It's FACT.
As such, when you give the player the option to respectfully disagree, you're giving them an anachronistic illusion. The writer should/would not want that! He's writing his world, and he doesn't need you to muck it up with your anachronistic POVs.
(The dwarf saying EPIC FAIL is a f-up on the writer's part, though.)
You can't have every option you want, because the writer does have to guide you somewhat. He has to drill it into your head, that the only reason you would openly voice your dissent is if you got up on the wrong side of the bed, and is itching for a confrontation.

Ummm... is the Chantry doctrine a fact for elves and dwarves, too? I mean, what irks me, for example, is the inability to give a respectful, polite or indifferent "no deal" to brother Burkel in Orz.. At first you may ask him, don't the dwarves have a kind of religion of their own. That's pretty respectful, ok? Then you either agree with or scold him for being an arrogant fool. Of course, if you first agree to sway the Shaperate, then you'll just reap what you sow.

Also defiling anyones ashes sounds pretty disrespectful in my books. Taking a pinch of them... oh well, it's just a game.

[Raiil]

O-kay...





Well, for starters, while this game has roots in older Western civilisations, it doesn't take place in England, or France, or any other country in Europe. It's a fictional world. Shouting that 'it didn't happen IRL' is a) false and not the issue. This game is not a point by point historical re-enactment of the Dark Ages. It's fantasy. If it was, all mages would be in constant danger of being burnt at the stake. Oh, and there wasn't the issue of different sentient species co-existing on the same landmass in Ye Olden Tymes, either. The Chantry does not have the power to hang non-believers. If your PC strips to their panties and screams their hatred for Andraste at the top of their lungs, the only thing the Chantry can legally do is give them a dirty look and refuse to help or give a blessing. They're not allowed to drag them off to be stoned. The Chantry is not as powerful as the Catholic Church used to be. It is separate from the ruling power.





The Pastafarian comment is irrelevant as well. It's a parody religion, and incredibly specific. Several of us have voiced a desire for a 'medium' setting, one that would easily satisfy Rpers who are playing an atheistic/pantheistic/nontheistic/ambivalent or laid-back heretic. We're not taking a stand on religion, since I'm guessing we run the gamut- the OP said they were an atheist IRL, I believe, while I am not- and we're not attempting to browbeat anyone into agreeing with us, or trying to force the writers to rewrite the script. What we're attempting to do is respectfully comment on an issue in the game that we think could be addressed to give us more wiggle room to immerse ourselves in. Believe me, I don't think any of us are going to start sacrificing barbie dolls to the Powers That Write in order to get everything changed. Eesh.

[Addai]

Valentia X wrote...

The Pastafarian comment is irrelevant as well. It's a parody religion, and incredibly specific. Several of us have voiced a desire for a 'medium' setting, one that would easily satisfy Rpers who are playing an atheistic/pantheistic/nontheistic/ambivalent or laid-back heretic.

Ok.  I'm still waiting for examples from the game for where you can't RP that way.  I don't know of any.

[Raiil]

Addai67 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...
The Pastafarian comment is irrelevant as well. It's a parody religion, and incredibly specific. Several of us have voiced a desire for a 'medium' setting, one that would easily satisfy Rpers who are playing an atheistic/pantheistic/nontheistic/ambivalent or laid-back heretic.

Ok.  I'm still waiting for examples from the game for where you can't RP that way.  I don't know of any.

As a general example, when you speak to Brother Burkel, you can choose an 'Of course I'll help!' answer, a rather rude one, and one that I saw as being flippant- yeah, good luck with that, let me know how it goes. One that went something along the lines of 'I wish you luck in your endevours, my friend' would have been nice.
For me it's not so much of an issue, since I usually play a fem!mage who might as well be called Trollbot 3000 with the vast majority of people I run into, but for my Dalish elf, who is courteous and very curious about the outside world- or if Amell feels like being nice for once- having a soft, if non-committal, answer would be nice.

[UpiH]

Valentia X wrote...
As a general example, when you speak to Brother Burkel, you can choose an 'Of course I'll help!' answer, a rather rude one, and one that I saw as being flippant- yeah, good luck with that, let me know how it goes. One that went something along the lines of 'I wish you luck in your endevours, my friend' would have been nice.
For me it's not so much of an issue, since I usually play a fem!mage who might as well be called Trollbot 3000 with the vast majority of people I run into, but for my Dalish elf, who is courteous and very curious about the outside world- or if Amell feels like being nice for once- having a soft, if non-committal, answer would be nice.

Not a big deal for me either. I'm an irreligious person, an agnostic, if you like, so taking a stand in a game isn't an issue. Sticking with it, being able to be consistent, now that's a different question.
 
The prob for me was that neither the flippant nor the indifferent answer would mark the quest as completed if I recall correctly. I may be wrong, though.

[Swordfishtrombone]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

I don't get it. If you "appreciate the work you do to help people,", then why don't you donate to the Chantry?

The same reason I don't give to religious charities in real world - part of that money will go to spreading a religion that I disagree with, and that I suspect has an overall negative effect that I'd rather not promote. It doesn't matter if the money is 1 copper, 30 silvers, or a million times that; it's the principle that matters. Yet that doesn't make me blind to the good a religious charity may do alongside spreading their doctrine.

In real life, I give to charities that are entirely secular - in the game, I'm also happy to do the chantry's board quests that involve me directly helping people, without helping with the prozelytization.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Mlai00 wrote...

Yes ppl take Andraste's name in vain. Doesn't mean she's not real to them, like gravity and dog hair. The Chant is not a religion/philosophy as you understand it. It's FACT.
As such, when you give the player the option to respectfully disagree, you're giving them an anachronistic illusion.

Then answer me the question I've asked, and you've ignored - if it is anachronistic to respecfully decline to participate in religious stuff, why is it not anachronistic to be a jerk about it, and decline?

I'm not asking for a change in the content of the refusal, I'm just asking for a way to refuse without being snarky, or purposefully insulting. I really, really don't get your objection to this.

[eucatastrophe]

traversc wrote...
Regardless of whether you are reverent of the ashes, you are not given the dialogue option to dissent.  Your entire party is like "ZOMG ashes!!1 so amazing."  The fact that you can say nothing to disagree with them (besides poisoning the ashes) CAN be construed as implicitly agreeing.  Of course, you can roleplay whatever you like and pretend that your character simply chooses not to express disagreement.  But you are not given the choice - and that's the entire point of this thread.  Lack of choice. 

Edit: Oh, and whether or not you take the ashes for Redcliffe has nothing to do with the issue.

While I agree with the OP and am for more choices, I think you have used are citing a very bad instance here. The Ashes of Andraste at the time of discovery would probably be awe-inspiring to both believer and skeptic alike. 

I feel very strongly about this because the gist i am getting from this thread is: realism. As such, I think what I mentioned afore would be realism and true to the game's setting. More on topic: Perhaps in the sequel, they can devise a smarter engine... where your initial responses tailor yours later in the game. So an initial "apathetic" view would give you more indifferent responses. 

[Addai]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Then answer me the question I've asked, and you've ignored - if it is anachronistic to respecfully decline to participate in religious stuff, why is it not anachronistic to be a jerk about it, and decline?

I'm not asking for a change in the content of the refusal, I'm just asking for a way to refuse without being snarky, or purposefully insulting. I really, really don't get your objection to this.

It is anachronistic to expect to roleplay a rationalistic philosophy that did not exist in the medieval mindset.

That is beside the fact that there is a way to refuse to give charity in Lothering- just say you don't have anything to give.  You don't have to tell her why.  You're there to either a) ask her help, in which case are you really going to launch into an explanation on why you don't want to support the work of the Chantry? or intimidate her into helping you, in which case snarky would fit just fine.

[Elhanan]

Even with my non-Chantry believing characters (ie; a few Dwarves and my Dalish Warden), I do not mind giving to their works as it appears to benefit almost all. They supply the Chanter's boards income, offer room and board to many, take care of widows and orphans, and educate the masses; things I do hold as true religion.

As far as being respectful, I simply remain silent during their prayers (eg; Redcliffe).

Modifié par Elhanan, 18 avril 2010 - 07:39 .