174 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...
I don't see any indication that Alistair wants to proclaim himself a divine figurehead.

I think he'd probably be horrified at the notion, in fact.

That being why we say the Ferelden government is secular.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's been three years, and Hawke can resolve the conflict by
fighting the Arishok in single combat (and being respected by the other
Qunari who leave and the one Qunari who addresses Hawke with respect
because the Arishok viewed him with high regard) or he can abide by the
Arishok's demands by handing over Isabela. It's been six years (at the
conclusion of the storyline) and there's no mention of the Qunari
leadership invading the rest of Thedas. If the Qunari did invade, the
Circles of Magi were the "greatest advantage" against them - according
to historical scholar Brother Genitivi.

When Tevinter mages re-established themselves in positions of authority
in the Imperium, they ceceded from the Chantry of Andraste and created
the Imperial Chantry - as I said previously, the Hero of Ferelden is the
most powerful "Andrastian" (i.e. mage in one of the Andrastian nations
under the Chantry of Andraste) in history. Oddly, Knight-Commander
Meredith never comments on this, even though King Alistair makes it
clear in conversation with Tegan that the Hero of Ferelden is waiting in
Denerim (apparently, having returned from the Eluvian if he left with
Morrigan). And the First Warden doesn't officially wield any political
power - the people of the Anderfels turn to them because their king is
weak, while the Warden-Commander is the Arl of Amaranthine, giving him
political and military might in his arling.

It's been broken before, and the Qunari never invaded - first when the
"Qunari" converts of the Kingdom of Rivain refused to leave, and second
when the Andrastians of the Kingdom of Rivain murdered the converts. I
don't see why the Arishok's actions will be any different.

It has nothing to do with arrogance, and there's no evidence the Qunari
are planning to invade when the Accord has been broken at least three
times already. There can't be a compromise because the templars want to
rule over the mages and the mages want independence from the Chantry -
it's impossible.

Six Years is not a long time at all when concerning international relations and preperations for war. The Qunari have been building up their armies and will not invade the rest of thedas again until they are fully prepared, From what Sten and the Arishok suggest.. They are almost prepared. The Accord wasn't breached by the Qunari before that event, it was breached by The Chantry and Kont-arr is said to have not reported back the killings. The other times the accord was breached it was not officially recognised by the qunari or the chantry, this time it was recognised by both.
Open war with the qunari is inevitable.

The Tevinter chantry worship Andraste just as the Orlesian Chantry do, Archon Hessarian acknowledged Andraste as the Makers chosen - although books come from tevinters scholars exploring the possibility that she was simply a powerful mage the Black divine and the tevinter chantry do follow andraste so they are considered andrastian.

When a large scale invasion is happening and people are fighting amongst themselves and refuse to stop fighting that is absolute arrogance. There is evidence the Qunari are planning to invade, Sten and the Arishok both say it will happen soon their forces are nearly at acceptable strength for an invasion and if the rest of thedas is fighting amongst themselves and the two major factions that opposed them and caused them the most trouble last time are to busy fighting each other of course they are going to take advantage of that.

The Templars indeed want to rule over that mages, but with the invasion when the choice is presented to either keep fighting and rule over nothing or make a compromise and have control over the people still but not the mages, the templars would make a compromise.

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I don't see any indication that Alistair wants to proclaim himself a divine figurehead.

I think he'd probably be horrified at the notion, in fact.

That being why we say the Ferelden government is secular.

Then by your definition, all governements in Thedas probably are.  The Qunari would be the closest to a theocracy, but they don't seem to have a deity in their belief system, just an ethical code.  As far as I know, there is no ruler in Thedas who proclaims himself Ra or Zeus.

Edit: Ian Polaris was comparing Alistair to Henry VIII, but you can't even go that far.  In declaring the Church of England, Henry was calling himself "pope," supreme head of the church in his realm.  I can see no indication Alistair wants to be head of the Chantry, in Ferelden or anywhere.

Modifié par Addai67, 15 juillet 2011 - 06:07 .

[GavrielKay]

XxDeonxX wrote...
When a large scale invasion is happening and people are fighting amongst themselves and refuse to stop fighting that is absolute arrogance.

If the invasion was happening, then you might be correct.  But it isn't happening.

There is evidence the Qunari are planning to invade, Sten and the Arishok both say it will happen soon their forces are nearly at acceptable strength for an invasion and if the rest of thedas is fighting amongst themselves and the two major factions that opposed them and caused them the most trouble last time are to busy fighting each other of course they are going to take advantage of that.

Except the epilogue takes place 3 years after the end game and no invasion is mentioned.  So it isn't as imminent as all that.  Maybe the Arishok's death gave them pause even.

The Templars indeed want to rule over that mages, but with the invasion when the choice is presented to either keep fighting and rule over nothing or make a compromise and have control over the people still but not the mages, the templars would make a compromise.

And if that is true, then the mages picked the perfect time to rebel.  They finally have some leverage against the Chantry.  If the governments and Chantry both need the mages to help in a war against the Qunari then the mages can get some real compromise - something that was just about impossible to imagine before the rebellion.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No.  The Fereldan Govt is secular.  It has authority outside the chantry.  It claims this authority comes from the Maker (Divine Right) which means that there is a strong religious component, but secular govt do exist (just as they did in the middle ages and rennaissance).  Even the Haupsberg line of the HRE was technically a secular govt (the Emperor was even elected!). 

More to the point, Alistair seems to be on the knife edge of "Going Chuch of England" on the Divine which would make the issue brutally clear.  In fact Maric and Loghain nearly did so after the Orlesian occupation so it's not a new thought in Fereldan.

-Polaris

I don't see any indication that Alistair wants to proclaim himself a divine figurehead.

I think he'd probably be horrified at the notion, in fact.

That wouldn't stop him from declaring himself and not the Divine the head of the Church if need be.  In fact de-facto (w/r/t Magic) he's essentially done this.

Alistair doesn't see himself as Ammun Ra, no.  I can easily see him in the same light as Henry VIII, though.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

Edit: Ian Polaris was comparing Alistair to Henry VIII, but you can't even go that far.  In declaring the Church of England, Henry was calling himself "pope," supreme head of the church in his realm.  I can see no indication Alistair wants to be head of the Chantry, in Ferelden or anywhere.

I certainly do!  When Alistair says that he and not the chantry should decide how magic is regulated, how estates are handled, etc, then he is most certainly (de facto if not yet de jure) replacing the Divine Authority with his own (very much in the same light as Henry VIII).  If you read the books, you'd also know that Maric and Loghain seriously considered doing the same a generation earlier just after the Civil War.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
That wouldn't stop him from declaring himself and not the Divine the head of the Church if need be.  In fact de-facto (w/r/t Magic) he's essentially done this.

Alistair doesn't see himself as Ammun Ra, no.  I can easily see him in the same light as Henry VIII, though.

-Polaris

The mage boon is worthless and not pertinent to the discussion.  Even if you assume it actually worked, all the crown is saying is that administration of the Circle should pass from one Andrastian body (templars) to another (the Circle mages), and it's not actually that out of the ordinary.  I'm sure in all Andrastian countries, there is a certain amount of political jockeying amongst the players and always has been- the Chantry asserting itself here, the crown there, and they work it out in the middle.

What is not clear to me is why you're stating that Ferelden is different in this regard than Orlais, Nevarra or Tevinter.  Ferelden is no more "secular" than any other country.  Even less so if you consider that in a place like Orlais, the empress has a more authoritarian rule than any Fereldan monarch can hope to have.

Modifié par Addai67, 15 juillet 2011 - 06:16 .

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Edit: Ian Polaris was comparing Alistair to Henry VIII, but you can't even go that far.  In declaring the Church of England, Henry was calling himself "pope," supreme head of the church in his realm.  I can see no indication Alistair wants to be head of the Chantry, in Ferelden or anywhere.

I certainly do!  When Alistair says that he and not the chantry should decide how magic is regulated, how estates are handled, etc, then he is most certainly (de facto if not yet de jure) replacing the Divine Authority with his own (very much in the same light as Henry VIII).  If you read the books, you'd also know that Maric and Loghain seriously considered doing the same a generation earlier just after the Civil War.

-Polaris

Considered, and realized they didn't have a prayer of making that happen.  No pun intended. 

He's asserting his civil authority as the rulers in Fereldan always have.  They have some say in determining how things are administered in the country, though whether they can actually carry through their decrees, that's always been a chancy thing.

It's no different in Kirkwall, though there the balance of civil to Chantry authority is severely out of whack.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Addai67 wrote...

The mage boon is worthless and not pertinent to the discussion.  Even if you assume it actually worked, all the crown is saying is that administration of the Circle should pass from one Andrastian body (templars) to another (the Circle mages), and it's not actually that out of the ordinary.  I'm sure in all Andrastian countries, there is a certain amount of political jockeying amongst the players and always has been- the Chantry asserting itself here, the crown there, and they work it out in the middle.

What is not clear to me is why you're stating that Ferelden is different in this regard than Orlais, Nevarra or Tevinter.  Ferelden is no more "secular" than any other country.  Even less so if you consider that in a place like Orlais, the empress has a more authoritarian rule than any Fereldan monarch can hope to have.

I personally think it is the way the word "secular government" is being interpreted. In a strict sense, a sepration of the rule of the government (however far that rule might reach) from the authority of the Chantry doesn't per se make that a secular government.

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I personally think it is the way the word "secular government" is being interpreted. In a strict sense, a sepration of the rule of the government (however far that rule might reach) from the authority of the Chantry doesn't per se make that a secular government.

From wikipedia:
Secularism is the separation of a government, organisation or institution from religion and/or religious beliefs.


In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from
religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental
imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral
on matters of belief.

The fact that people within a government practice a particular religoin (even if it is 100% participation and all the same religion) doesn't make the government a theocracy.  If they do not force a religion on the people and do not claim any power within the hierarchy of the religion, then I believe it would be defined as a secular government.  Alistair especially seems unlikely to force Chantry doctrine onto his people - given his doubts about a lot of their teachings.

What I meant in my original comment is that the governments might try to act outside Chantry doctrine by approaching the mages and working out treaties.  As those governments are not part of the Chantry they have however much autonomy they are prepared to fight for.  The Chantry's power stems from its grip on the people (including those inside the government), not that they actively run those governments (except for Kirkwall which is thoroughly dysfunctional anyway).

edit: spelling

Modifié par GavrielKay, 15 juillet 2011 - 06:38 .

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...
The fact that people within a government practice a particular religoin (even if it is 100% participation and all the same religion) doesn't make the government a theocracy. 

This point for me is irrelevant- though I do think it's telling that only an Andrastian would ever ascend to or hold the Fereldan throne.

The question is whether the Chantry has a political foothold in Ferelden.  It certainly does, and not just an unofficial one- the Grand Cleric speaks at the Landsmeet.  She confers coronation.  I don't recall if she gets a Landsmeet vote or not, but she's there in an official capacity.  Ferelden is a mixed civil/ religious state as all Andrastian countries are.

If they do not force a religion on the people and do not claim any power within the hierarchy of the religion, then I believe it would be defined as a secular government. 

Then Ferelden doesn't qualify.  They maintain alienages, for instance.  No one has tried to convert the dwarves, but that is probably because of their importance in commerce.  They have a trump card, especially in lyrium.

What I meant in my original comment is that the governments might try to act outside Chantry doctrine by approaching the mages and working out treaties.  As those governments are not part of the Chantry they have however much autonomy they are prepared to fight for.  The Chantry's power stems from its grip on the people (including those inside the government), not that they actively run those governments (except for Kirkwall which is thoroughly dysfunctional anyway).

edit: spelling

This sort of goes against what you said earlier.  If Alistair or any Fereldan monarch is prepared to overturn the Circle system, then the crown would be forcing a new religious consensus on its people.  If the Landsmeet votes on it, it would be legal- but hell will freeze over before a Landsmeet will go completely against the Chantry.

I do imagine civil rulers will be a part of whatever new consensus comes out of the mage-templar war.  That's nothing new, however.  As far as I can see, there has always been a give and take of power, especially in Ferelden where there is no central authority.

Modifié par Addai67, 15 juillet 2011 - 07:00 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I personally think it is the way the word "secular government" is being interpreted. In a strict sense, a sepration of the rule of the government (however far that rule might reach) from the authority of the Chantry doesn't per se make that a secular government.

From wikipedia:
Secularism is the separation of a government, organisation or institution from religion and/or religious beliefs.


In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from
religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental
imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral
on matters of belief.

Okay.

The fact that people within a government practice a particular religoin (even if it is 100% participation and all the same religion) doesn't make the government a theocracy.

Right. For a theocracy what we'd actually need is a rule where the laws are something like divine commandments. But a goverment that is not a theocracy isn't necessarily a secular one.

If they do not force a religion on the people and do not claim any power within the hierarchy of the religion, then I believe it would be defined as a secular government.

Before we talk about a "secular" anything, we'll need at least two different belief systems, and both should be treated equally before the eyes of the "law." It would be a difficult task to undertake in a place like Ferelden and/or Kirkwall, both of which we have seen first hand.

Alistair especially seems unlikely to force Chantry doctrine onto his people - given his doubts about a lot of their teachings.

True, I suppose. But a secular government should go out of its way not to support/restrict any "particular" religion. That is what defines it. Given the alternative, though, let's say between an Andrastian thought system and a Qunari way of thinking, would he remain neutral?

What I meant in my original comment is that the governments might try to act outside Chantry doctrine by approaching the mages and working out treaties.  As those governments are not part of the Chantry they have however much autonomy they are prepared to fight for.  The Chantry's power stems from its grip on the people (including those inside the government), not that they actively run those governments (except for Kirkwall which is thoroughly dysfunctional anyway).

My earlier reply was in response to someone else's comments.

I agree with you. The Chantry's hegemony over mages, their doctrines, etc. might be questioned by rulers like Alister. But this I believe is a separate matter.
 
In both Ferelden and Kirkwall, I think there has been a deliberate attempt to keep the rule of the general public out of the hands of the Chantry, who with their templar arm police the mages. We hear that from Seneshal Bran during Act 3 in DA2. So there has been an attempt to make the states more secular, in a way paving way for some sort of civil law. But would the rulers/nobles be more tolerant of someone converting to the Dalish way of things or the Qunari way of things? That I believe is not so clear.

EDIT: Adding a missed quote.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 15 juillet 2011 - 07:23 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The nations of Thedas aren't exactly clergy, but they certainly aren't secular. The very fact that even in Ferelden, the Chantry gets a vote on who is to be king, should be enough to show that they aren't secular. Furthermore they are promoting Andrastianism, and restricting other religions at the same time, just look at the other religions in Thedas, which are all considered heretical.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The nations of Thedas aren't exactly clergy, but they certainly aren't secular. The very fact that even in Ferelden, the Chantry gets a vote on who is to be king, should be enough to show that they aren't secular. Furthermore they are promoting Andrastianism, and restricting other religions at the same time, just look at the other religions in Thedas, which are all considered heretical.

The Grand Cleric did not vote on the Kingship in Fereldan...at least not in my copy of DAO.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Her support counts for 2 votes in the landsmeet. Take it however you want, it is either game mechanics or she actually has a vote.

Edit: 1 of those 2 votes is probably the Templar's sister, the other is however unaccounted for, if not the Grand Cleric's.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:10 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Her support counts for 2 votes in the landsmeet. Take it however you want, it is either game mechanics or she actually has a vote.

Edit: 1 of those 2 votes is probably the Templar's sister, the other is however unaccounted for, if not the Grand Cleric's.

Source?  Her INFLUENCE can give up up to two votes, that that doesn't make her a voting member of the landsmeet....so you are wrong (again).

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

COULD be wrong. Could be right aswell. I doubt you understand the difference, so I'm not gonna bother to explain it to you.

[DRTJR]

who has greater power he who can vote once or he who holds influence over many though lacks that vote.

[IanPolaris]

DRTJR wrote...

who has greater power he who can vote once or he who holds influence over many though lacks that vote.

For the purposes of this discussion, the one that can vote once because they are PART of the goverment.  The Fereldan Govt is thus secular.  The Chantry might influence (but frankly none too well if Maric and Loghain are any indication) but they don't have a say.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

DRTJR wrote...
who has greater power he who can vote once or he who holds influence over many though lacks that vote.

Who wields influence matters of course, but isn't the same as actually holding the power.  The voting nobles that the Grand  Cleric has influence over could someday take their cues from someone else and the Grand Cleric could do little besides look for someone else's ear to whisper into.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Also, that random Grand Cleric might not be a hardliner. The thing that she objects to is Loghain snatching a blood mage from Templar custody and tasking him with poisoning Eamon. She wasn't debating the finer issues of mage politics, she was outraged that Loghain would stoop to those lengths, and with good reason.

[Augustei]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Her support counts for 2 votes in the landsmeet. Take it however you want, it is either game mechanics or she actually has a vote.

Edit: 1 of those 2 votes is probably the Templar's sister, the other is however unaccounted for, if not the Grand Cleric's.

No, you are correct the grand clerics denunciation of Loghain in the landsmeet counts for 2 points.. While the support of a noble grants 1 point.. so her support is worth more then that of an arl at least.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

who has greater power he who can vote once or he who holds influence over many though lacks that vote.

For the purposes of this discussion, the one that can vote once because they are PART of the goverment.  The Fereldan Govt is thus secular.  The Chantry might influence (but frankly none too well if Maric and Loghain are any indication) but they don't have a say.

-Polaris

The monarch doesn't vote, either, so by this measure...  lol

Give it up.  Ferelden is no more "secular" than any other Andrastian country.  Even if I were to take your example of Henry VIII, how do you rate Tudor England as a secular country anyway?  Is that why Henry's children were scouring the country looking for priests to burn (or secret Protestants, as the case may be)?

Modifié par Addai67, 16 juillet 2011 - 01:56 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Secularism and religious tolerance do not go hand in hand, though. Perhaps they don't have a clear cut separation between church and state, but they are significantly less powerful in Ferelden than in Orlais, the Free Marches, or Neverra. Ferelden will probably go the way of Tudor England, though, and break off, probably slaughtering plenty of those loyal to the Divine of Val Royeaux. The Chantry is as Orlesian as Orlesian gets, and things aren't looking good between those two countries.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 16 juillet 2011 - 02:54 .