228 réponses à ce sujet

[The dead fish]

esper wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

esper wrote...

Gervaise wrote...Snip.

Just to clarify Gervaise I am not anti-religion. But I don't thin that religious organisation should have a military - escpially not if the military is also tied with a empire that currently have expansionisme as a goal.

I don't think the chantry would be so silly to help Orlais conquer the others Andrastian Nations, knowing that its influence in these countries is what matters most to it. How to win the hearts of your people in all andrastian kingdoms, when you need them, - for example for an exalted march - if you betray them ?

War between andrastian kingdoms decreases the influence of the chantry.

Also in the stolen throne, the chantry has done everything to reduce the suffering of Ferelden, to stop war between the mad king and the rebels. Orlais and Ferelden. For peace between factions. We could argue its action, but the motivation was there. The chantry didn't want the war, that was the will of Orlais against their own will.

we could also argue the motivation for wanting to reconsole them, but less not.
The problem is that the 'top' of the ´chantry is tied to Orlais and that the chantry 'looks' away. Also there is a difference between national chantries and the top of the chantry.
but let's see how Orlais actually works it might be different than anyone of us imagine, but so far it not looking good.

The mother does not seem at all to act in national interest. But I agree.

[Bayz]

Sylvianus wrote...

Well you're right. But I think it would be wrong to believe that the Chantry would advocate absolutely an expansionist itself on andrastian people. That's quite risky, and I do not think the chantry likes risk, precisely everything that could threaten its power in a way or another.

But as you said, may be more of resignation, to look away, accepting reality, just  like a wealth prisoner in his ivory tower, in Orlais.

Well obviously, why would you want to kill your Brothers in Faith when you have beautiful Qunari heathens and Tevinter Heretics with land you could grab, after all?

I mean not Andrastian, but Orlesian Chantry factions will first look to expand their faith, and then may support Orlesian interests.

The part I think they support Orlesian interests is in Kirkwall, why I say that? well Orlais is preparing a war against Ferelden, taking Kirkwall which is an important port city in the Waking Sea, and has the core cities of Highever and Amaranthine quite close to them, they could use Kirkwall to take supplies in a future invasion, if they decide to lay siege to both cities.

I do not believe they would ask open support to Kirkwall as it will not lend it, but they can use it as a pivot point to help their invasion in northern Ferelden.

I may be a conspiracy theorist but, I am too cynic to believe that the threat of an Exalted March to the city of Chains and the worsening of relations between Ferelden and Orlais are not related. Yeah I know I will change my surname to Loghain in the future

PS: I rather call it Orlesian Chantry even if it is not situated in Orlais to difference between it and the Imperial Chantry. The Orlesian Chantry situated in Orlais I call the Divine to be more explicit.

Modifié par Bayz, 02 novembre 2011 - 11:57 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Considering the multitude of threads complaining about how Bioware is pushing certain groups to seem better/worse than they actually are, is this also the case for the chantry? They make Meredith incompetent, make Elthina ineffectual, have them harbor mad zealots, have them endorse the conquest and further occupation of Ferelden, force all elves to live either on the run or as second class citizens, lobotimize people because they're dangerous, plan exalted marches on the drop of a hat and so forth.

I'm sure there are many and more things people would like to bring up here, so let's have it. How is bioware making the chantry look bad?

I think they are accurately portraying how organized religion can become corrupt and become the cause of atrocities.

The crusades, the witch hunts, and the overall bigotry that zealots show over towards anyone and anything that doesn't agree with their religion.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I hated the Chantry in Origins and thought they were incompetent then, so nothing's really changed.

This. I thought them useless and laughable in Origins, so i don't see how DA2 could have made them worse. If anything, it probably was an effort to make the Chantry look more sympathetic, but it failed, at least as far as I'm concerned.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Considering the multitude of threads complaining about how Bioware is pushing certain groups to seem better/worse than they actually are, is this also the case for the chantry? They make Meredith incompetent, make Elthina ineffectual, have them harbor mad zealots, have them endorse the conquest and further occupation of Ferelden, force all elves to live either on the run or as second class citizens, lobotimize people because they're dangerous, plan exalted marches on the drop of a hat and so forth.

I'm sure there are many and more things people would like to bring up here, so let's have it. How is bioware making the chantry look bad?

I think they are accurately portraying how organized religion can become corrupt and become the cause of atrocities.

The crusades, the witch hunts, and the overall bigotry that zealots show over towards anyone and anything that doesn't agree with their religion.

Sort of like how anti-Chantry (anti-religion) people view the Chantry (religion).....

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And I'd rather not be a mage, yet the option is probably going to be present. I wouldn't complain about a game where I am forced to be a mage either, since I would find it interesting to see what BioWare intended with such a story. Mainly it is because I am interrested in the story of Thedas, and not so far up my own **** that I can't look past some petty internet argument, and enjoy a story being told...

Okay that came across as a bit hostile, which wasn't intended... I just get a bit frustrated at people writing off a game, based on something as silly as a that...

It's clear that this is directed at me, but I'm simply not interested in being a member of the Chantry, in being a member of the Seekers, in being pro-templar... it's not something I would enjoy. Why should I invest my time or money in a game where I'm not likely to have choices about how I want to handle situations, when I already have issues with how limited Hawke was in the narrative of Dragon Age 2? Would being a mage be present if the protagonist is a Seeker? Doubtful. The Seekers are basically 'elite templars,' since Varric lumped the Seekers into the Order of Templars during his dialogue to Cassandra at the end of the storyline, so it wouldn't make any sense for a mage to be an 'elite templar.' Being an elf or a dwarf is also doubtful.

Being a pro-Chantry, pro-templar Seeker in Dragon Age 3 isn't something I personally want, especially in a war between the mages and the templars. If it's more to your tastes, you'll probably enjoy it, but I would simply favor choices over being given one, single choice and no alternatives.

[Bayz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And I'd rather not be a mage, yet the option is probably going to be present. I wouldn't complain about a game where I am forced to be a mage either, since I would find it interesting to see what BioWare intended with such a story. Mainly it is because I am interrested in the story of Thedas, and not so far up my own **** that I can't look past some petty internet argument, and enjoy a story being told...

Okay that came across as a bit hostile, which wasn't intended... I just get a bit frustrated at people writing off a game, based on something as silly as a that...

It's clear that this is directed at me, but I'm simply not interested in being a member of the Chantry, in being a member of the Seekers, in being pro-templar... it's not something I would enjoy. Why should I invest my time or money in a game where I'm not likely to have choices about how I want to handle situations, when I already have issues with how limited Hawke was in the narrative of Dragon Age 2? Would being a mage be present if the protagonist is a Seeker? Doubtful. The Seekers are basically 'elite templars,' since Varric lumped the Seekers into the Order of Templars during his dialogue to Cassandra at the end of the storyline, so it wouldn't make any sense for a mage to be an 'elite templar.' Being an elf or a dwarf is also doubtful.

Being a pro-Chantry, pro-templar Seeker in Dragon Age 3 isn't something I personally want, especially in a war between the mages and the templars. If it's more to your tastes, you'll probably enjoy it, but I would simply favor choices over being given one, single choice and no alternatives.

This, please Bioware Choices. Choices are good.

And if said choices come with real consecuences superb!

Modifié par Bayz, 03 novembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Addai]

greengoron89 wrote...

The Chantry is and has only ever been a vehicle for its leaders to spread and exert their power over others. They are a tyrannical empire, plain and simple - they are responsible for as much or more war, mass murder, enslavement, and oppression as the Tevinter Empire that they so despise.

I hope they get what's coming to them in a future DA game - I'll gladly see their organization eliminated for good.

Meaning you want more war, mass murder, and forceful enactment of a new religious consensus on large populations.  Ah, the little ironies of life.

BTW "the Chantry" encompasses the Tevinters, too.  Unless you specify the White Chantry.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

And if he is talking about the Andrastian Chantry as opposed to the Imperial Chantry that's also blatantly false. The Tevinter Imperium has been around for much longer is has been significantly more brutal over the millenia. The Imperium annihilated Arlathan and keep the entire elven race as slaves for a thousand years and conquered nation after nation by force until they spread across almost all of modern day Thedas. Say what you want about the destruction of the Dales or their treatment of mages, Tevinter is much worse. Then there's also the fact that the Chantry isn't even an empire. The Tevinter Archon and magisters have power over everything, the Divine and clerics do not.

[Herr Uhl]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

And if he is talking about the Andrastian Chantry as opposed to the Imperial Chantry that's also blatantly false. The Tevinter Imperium has been around for much longer is has been significantly more brutal over the millenia. The Imperium annihilated Arlathan and keep the entire elven race as slaves for a thousand years and conquered nation after nation by force until they spread across almost all of modern day Thedas. Say what you want about the destruction of the Dales or their treatment of mages, Tevinter is much worse. Then there's also the fact that the Chantry isn't even an empire. The Tevinter Archon and magisters have power over everything, the Divine and clerics do not.

The Tevinter Imperium of old didn't have a chantry. The Imperial Chantry is a fairly new beast, that is in fact significantlly younger than the regular one.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I know, but the comparison was between the Tevinter Imperium and the White Divine's Chantry. The Imperial Chantry isn't THAT much younger. It's like 550 years old now, there's been two Chantries longer than there ever was one now.

[TheJediSaint]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

And if he is talking about the Andrastian Chantry as opposed to the Imperial Chantry that's also blatantly false. The Tevinter Imperium has been around for much longer is has been significantly more brutal over the millenia. The Imperium annihilated Arlathan and keep the entire elven race as slaves for a thousand years and conquered nation after nation by force until they spread across almost all of modern day Thedas. Say what you want about the destruction of the Dales or their treatment of mages, Tevinter is much worse. Then there's also the fact that the Chantry isn't even an empire. The Tevinter Archon and magisters have power over everything, the Divine and clerics do not.

Unfortunatly, there's a subset of the fanbase who are committed to the belief that the Chantry is the greatest evil on the face of Thedas.  Nevermind Qunari who want to brainwash everyone, the Tevinters who want to rule everyone, or the darkspawn who want to KILL everyone.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 03 novembre 2011 - 06:16 .

[Bayz]

How DARE you!! Everyone knows the Darkspawn are the Good guys. Look at them, they are always smiling!

Look the smile of a child

Modifié par Bayz, 03 novembre 2011 - 06:07 .

[TheJediSaint]

Bayz wrote...

How DARE you!! Everyone knows the Darkspawn are the Good guys. Look at them, they are always smiling!

Look the smile of a child

Hey, I never said that darkspawn don't enjoy what they do.

[Gervaise]

The Headquarters of the Chantry is in Orlais and has very close political ties with the rulers there. I have always had great suspicions about Exalted Marches that just happened to be against nations that were also of strategic/economic importance to Orlais. It is highly unlikely that the Chantry could have succeeded in Exalted Marches without the backing of Orlais and in the case of the Dales, other nations that it convinced should help stamp out the heresy of the elves. I am still fully convinced that the action taken against the Dales was as much politically motivated as religious.

I often wonder about Shartan's words in the Gauntlet "she was betrayed and so were we". Naturally you assume he is talking about Andraste's betrayal by Maferath but it isn't such as stretch to read it as both Andraste and the elves being betrayed by the Chantry. The greatest betrayal so far as I am concerned lies in the "Divine Right" claim by both Templars and the nobility in Orlais - which seems to give them free rein to treat people who do not have the same "Right" in any way they please. Since the Emperor Drakon actually founded the first Chantry it is hardly surprising that it should form the basis the beliefs of that country.

Most of my characters are either Andrastrian or at least respect Andraste and the message of the Chant of Light. I also have nothing against the majority of little chantries throughout Thedas who do a good job among the ordinary people and wouldn't want to see them overthrown in some awful wave of anti-Chantry zealotry. But if someone could rise up and declare the Black and White Divines against the will of the Maker I would probably support them, just so long as they didn't go around planting bombs and indulging in mass murder in order to achieve their aims. Sebastian's ancestor in Starkhaven proved you can actually do a "Ghandi" on the steps of the Chantry and succeed in what you are trying to do.

Incidentally I would be interested to know who originally set up the Inquisition from which the Templars sprang, as the codexes seem to suggest that they were independent of the Chantry until the Circles were set up, when they brought them under their control. Or have I misread that? I wonder if it was before then that they started using lyrium as a protection against magic, or the Chantry were the ones who discovered this and then offered it to them knowing it would help keep them under control. I actually felt sorry for the Templars in Origins when I discovered about the lyrium addiction and then found that poor guy raving in the dungeons. It seemed to me that both mages and Templars were trapped by the system and so perhaps it isn't entirely coincidence that both parties took the opportunity to break away when it presented itself.

[Bayz]

I support the Chantry, but I support my character's national interests over the Divine any time. That's if I roleplay a nationalistic character at least, most of the time my characters will support the Chantry so long as it doesn't interfere with my objectives.

I don't see Bioware painting them as Black or White, the same I don't see them painting any other organization the same. Dragon Age Universe is filled with comfortable Grey Scales...

[jamesp81]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Considering the multitude of threads complaining about how Bioware is pushing certain groups to seem better/worse than they actually are, is this also the case for the chantry? They make Meredith incompetent, make Elthina ineffectual, have them harbor mad zealots, have them endorse the conquest and further occupation of Ferelden, force all elves to live either on the run or as second class citizens, lobotimize people because they're dangerous, plan exalted marches on the drop of a hat and so forth.

I'm sure there are many and more things people would like to bring up here, so let's have it. How is bioware making the chantry look bad?

I think they are accurately portraying how organized religion can become corrupt and become the cause of atrocities.

The crusades, the witch hunts, and the overall bigotry that zealots show over towards anyone and anything that doesn't agree with their religion.

Sort of like how anti-Chantry (anti-religion) people view the Chantry (religion).....

Politics corrupts everything it touches.  Mix politics and religion, and religion gets corrupted.  The outcome is both inevitable and unfortunate.

I'm not anti-religion.  Very pro-religion, in fact, some might say too much for my own good.  That doesn't change the accuracy of the above statements.  Mixing religious authority and civil power has historically not gone well.  The inevitable result is that religious leaders become less concerned with their faith and more concerned with temporal power.

Modifié par jamesp81, 04 novembre 2011 - 02:16 .

[AlexXIV]

jamesp81 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Considering the multitude of threads complaining about how Bioware is pushing certain groups to seem better/worse than they actually are, is this also the case for the chantry? They make Meredith incompetent, make Elthina ineffectual, have them harbor mad zealots, have them endorse the conquest and further occupation of Ferelden, force all elves to live either on the run or as second class citizens, lobotimize people because they're dangerous, plan exalted marches on the drop of a hat and so forth.

I'm sure there are many and more things people would like to bring up here, so let's have it. How is bioware making the chantry look bad?

I think they are accurately portraying how organized religion can become corrupt and become the cause of atrocities.

The crusades, the witch hunts, and the overall bigotry that zealots show over towards anyone and anything that doesn't agree with their religion.

Sort of like how anti-Chantry (anti-religion) people view the Chantry (religion).....

Politics corrupts everything it touches.  Mix politics and religion, and religion gets corrupted.  The outcome is both inevitable and unfortunate.

I'm not anti-religion.  Very pro-religion, in fact, some might say too much for my own good.  That doesn't change the accuracy of the above statements.  Mixing religious authority and civil power has historically not gone well.  The inevitable result is that religious leaders become less concerned with their faith and more concerned with temporal power.

The problem in both, politics and religion, are the people. Human nature is selfish so most will follow an idea(l) only until it hurts too much. So it is inevitable that when people gain power and responsibility corruption sparks at some point and then eventually spreads. Probably every politcal or religious institution should be cast down at some point, turn to ashes so to speak, so something new can rise out of the ashes. Because the longer it exists the more corruption will have spread and will have taken hold in it's core.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 04 novembre 2011 - 02:26 .

[Addai]

jamesp81 wrote...
Politics corrupts everything it touches.  Mix politics and religion, and religion gets corrupted.  The outcome is both inevitable and unfortunate.

I'm not anti-religion.  Very pro-religion, in fact, some might say too much for my own good.  That doesn't change the accuracy of the above statements.  Mixing religious authority and civil power has historically not gone well.  The inevitable result is that religious leaders become less concerned with their faith and more concerned with temporal power.

Civil power alone cannot hold back corruption.  It is better if power is centered in more than one place, so that the institutions can check each other.  How everyone thinks the monarchies and oligarchies of Thedas will be so much better without a Chantry counterbalance is amusing. 

[Bayz]

Addai67 wrote...
Civil power alone cannot hold back corruption.  It is better if power is centered in more than one place, so that the institutions can check each other.  How everyone thinks the monarchies and oligarchies of Thedas will be so much better without a Chantry counterbalance is amusing. 

You mean having the Power divided in three branches as IRL?

But yeah it kinda works for us a bit...at least people need to invest money in more than one place to corrupt it enough.

[Addai]

Bayz wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Civil power alone cannot hold back corruption.  It is better if power is centered in more than one place, so that the institutions can check each other.  How everyone thinks the monarchies and oligarchies of Thedas will be so much better without a Chantry counterbalance is amusing. 

You mean having the Power divided in three branches as IRL?

But yeah it kinda works for us a bit...at least people need to invest money in more than one place to corrupt it enough.

Well I'm thinking more about medieval Europe where the RCC tended to check the power of kings and vice versa.  Naturally it didn't always work well, but just to throw out an example, the church discouraged slavery and promoted education whereas those were not always the instinctive interest of civil rulers.

[Bayz]

Ferelden actually does have the Landsmeet which paralells the General Council of nobles that all the courts in Europe had in Medieval times, but it is true that we don't know how things work in Orlais propper.

[maxernst]

Addai67 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Politics corrupts everything it touches.  Mix politics and religion, and religion gets corrupted.  The outcome is both inevitable and unfortunate.

I'm not anti-religion.  Very pro-religion, in fact, some might say too much for my own good.  That doesn't change the accuracy of the above statements.  Mixing religious authority and civil power has historically not gone well.  The inevitable result is that religious leaders become less concerned with their faith and more concerned with temporal power.

Civil power alone cannot hold back corruption.  It is better if power is centered in more than one place, so that the institutions can check each other.  How everyone thinks the monarchies and oligarchies of Thedas will be so much better without a Chantry counterbalance is amusing. 

In fact, that's one of the reasons Kirkwall falls apart--there is no counterbalance to Meredith, after the Viscount and Elthina die.  A weakness of DA2 is that it fails to convey much of an impression of Kirkwall's political structure.  I think we learned more about the workings of all of the various structures (Orzammar, the Landsmeet, the Dalish, the Circle) we were exposed to in DA:O than we do about Kirkwall.  Historically, independent cities like Kirkwall tended to be ruled by people elected by the noble families, but that doesn't appear to be the case in Kirkwall.  On the other hand, though the Viscount seems to be a hereditary position, he doesn't seem to be an absolute ruler, so you have to think there's some other political body out there.

[AlexXIV]

maxernst wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Politics corrupts everything it touches.  Mix politics and religion, and religion gets corrupted.  The outcome is both inevitable and unfortunate.

I'm not anti-religion.  Very pro-religion, in fact, some might say too much for my own good.  That doesn't change the accuracy of the above statements.  Mixing religious authority and civil power has historically not gone well.  The inevitable result is that religious leaders become less concerned with their faith and more concerned with temporal power.

Civil power alone cannot hold back corruption.  It is better if power is centered in more than one place, so that the institutions can check each other.  How everyone thinks the monarchies and oligarchies of Thedas will be so much better without a Chantry counterbalance is amusing. 

In fact, that's one of the reasons Kirkwall falls apart--there is no counterbalance to Meredith, after the Viscount and Elthina die.  A weakness of DA2 is that it fails to convey much of an impression of Kirkwall's political structure.  I think we learned more about the workings of all of the various structures (Orzammar, the Landsmeet, the Dalish, the Circle) we were exposed to in DA:O than we do about Kirkwall.  Historically, independent cities like Kirkwall tended to be ruled by people elected by the noble families, but that doesn't appear to be the case in Kirkwall.  On the other hand, though the Viscount seems to be a hereditary position, he doesn't seem to be an absolute ruler, so you have to think there's some other political body out there.

Kirkwall is the place where the power of the Chantry/templars clashes with the nobility. I guess it is Orlais trying to keep control over a 'free city' while the nobles would probably rather be truely free, but don't dare to openly oppose the Chantry and Orlais. So in fact the Viscount and nobles are not in charge. The vicount hints that he is trying to appease the Chantry, the Viscount himself probably doesn't even have problems with the Qunari if not the Chantry would make pressure. Not to mention that the Chantry also has influence on the common people. So civil war was sorta up there in the air even without templar/mage conflict.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 04 novembre 2011 - 05:35 .

[Bayz]

maxernst wrote...

In fact, that's one of the reasons Kirkwall falls apart--there is no counterbalance to Meredith, after the Viscount and Elthina die.  A weakness of DA2 is that it fails to convey much of an impression of Kirkwall's political structure.  I think we learned more about the workings of all of the various structures (Orzammar, the Landsmeet, the Dalish, the Circle) we were exposed to in DA:O than we do about Kirkwall.  Historically, independent cities like Kirkwall tended to be ruled by people elected by the noble families, but that doesn't appear to be the case in Kirkwall.  On the other hand, though the Viscount seems to be a hereditary position, he doesn't seem to be an absolute ruler, so you have to think there's some other political body out there.

Historically independent cities like Kirkwall tended to be ruled by people elected by the noble\\merchant families, archbishops, or princes\\dukes which seems to be the case in Kirkwall. Kirkwall paralells more the Duchy of Saxony in the early 1400 more than Danzig so to speak (despite being a port city and all that)