75 réponses à ce sujet

[WhiteKnyght]

Lol this is so funny. Meredith feels she is doing the Maker's work by slaughtering innocents out of prejudice. And believes she will be given a heavenly reward for it.

How is her invoking the Right of Annulment just because people will want someone to pay any different than what the Archon Hessarian did to Andraste?

I think the Chant of Light is a load of biased historical accounts and the rest pure crap, but I remember that one of the greatest sins mentioned in it is slaughtering innocents. And Meredith makes it plain as day that she knows the Circle is guiltless, but is gonna kill them anyway.

Andrastian hypcrisy at it's zenith. The name Maleficar is better suited for Meredith, not any of the blood mages I've seen throughout Origins and DAII.

[jamesp81]

I still RP all my Hawkes as Andrastians. You can't judge the whole by Meredith.

The short answer to why Meredith acts as she does is that she's freaked out, howling at the moon, bat**** insane. Freaky magic idols from deepest parts of the deep roads have a tendency to do that sort of thing to a person, especially one who already rather likes power and is into taking more of it.

[General User]

OP, I'm not sure if you picked up on this, it's a subtle point and easily missed, but MEREDITH WAS CRAZY.

Modifié par General User, 09 novembre 2011 - 11:00 .

[whykikyouwhy]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

I think the Chant of Light is a load of biased historical accounts and the rest pure crap, but I remember that one of the greatest sins mentioned in it is slaughtering innocents. And Meredith makes it plain as day that she knows the Circle is guiltless, but is gonna kill them anyway.

Andrastian hypcrisy at it's zenith. The name Maleficar is better suited for Meredith, not any of the blood mages I've seen throughout Origins and DAII.

Innocents are often slaughtered, or mistreated, in the name of an ideal, or for some far-reaching goal - and that is not something unique to matters of faith. Those not subscribing to any manner of worship may commit the same acts.

Meredith resides in a seat of power, is in a role that is symbolic to her order, but she is not the core of the organization or of the faith. Her actions do not taint any good that may be the foundation of the Andrastian religion, though they do taint the perception of it. She is a single person, mad and driven to act contrary to the preservation of life and order (but such is how skewed her vision is by Act 3 that she believes her actions to be just).

[WhiteKnyght]

I didn't say I was judging every Andrastian. But you have to admit that Andrastism's core principles and fundamentals are hypocritical.

They praise Andraste for freeing slaves and ending oppression, yet they've spent the last millennium imprisoning and oppressing innocent people just for being born with powers.

The Chant says not to harm innocents yet anybody who so much as gives an apostate food gets a death sentence.

The Tevinters are reviled because they conquered lands and forced their system on them. As are the Qunari. Yet the Chant of Light states when it is sung across the world the Maker will forgive them and create a paradise. And to achieve this the Chantry and it's Templar army subjugate anything they see as a threat to that.

They are what they hate.

[Lenimph]

She was on a bad lyrium trip.

Drugs are bad mmmkay.

[whykikyouwhy]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

I didn't say I was judging every Andrastian. But you have to admit that Andrastism's core principles and fundamentals are hypocritical.

They praise Andraste for freeing slaves and ending oppression, yet they've spent the last millennium imprisoning and oppressing innocent people just for being born with powers.

The Chant says not to harm innocents yet anybody who so much as gives an apostate food gets a death sentence.

The Tevinters are reviled because they conquered lands and forced their system on them. As are the Qunari. Yet the Chant of Light states when it is sung across the world the Maker will forgive them and create a paradise. And to achieve this the Chantry and it's Templar army subjugate anything they see as a threat to that.

They are what they hate.

Regarding the bolded bit, I  certainly don't want to get into a debate that parallels any modern religions, but I think you may be looking at a difference between the faith (and its core tenets) and the people that follow it. So while there is some inherent "good" within Andrastism (that looks to be spelled wrong...), it's the responsibility of those that take up the mantle and who profess to follow the faith to keep those tenets from being corrupted.

But, putting ideals in the hands of the fallible is always tricky. It's the mortal imperfections that skew the things that may in fact be something akin to perfection (if such a state exists).

So yes, some of the Chantry members/followers in the two games thus far have proven to be somewhat hypocritical, but there are others who uphold some pretty powerful ideals and seek to make Thedas a bit better.

[LadyJaneGrey]

*Goes Codex Diving*  I don't see how these basic principles are hypocritical.  Sure, any organization will have it's hypocrites and bad interpretations, but these seem like pretty good rules to live by:

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.


Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.

Foul and corrupt are they

Who have taken His gift

And turned it against His children.

They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.

They shall find no rest in this world

Or beyond.


All men are the Work of our Maker's Hands,

From the lowest slaves

To the highest kings.

Those who bring harm

Without provocation to the least of His children

Are hated and accursed by the Maker.


Those who bear false witness

And work to deceive others, know this:

There is but one Truth.

All things are known to our Maker

And He shall judge their lies.


All things in this world are finite.

What one man gains, another has lost.

Those who steal from their brothers and sisters

Do harm to their livelihood and to their peace of mind.

Our Maker sees this with a heavy heart.


--Transfigurations 1:1-5

We can argue all day whether the Maker exists and whether he's worth obeying, but I have a hard time seeing  these as bad, hypocritical principles.  "Use your gifts to serve others, do not attack/harm others (regardless of whether you could get away with it),  don't lie, and don't steal."

[philippe willaume]

well
she was ready to sacrifice a few to save the many. just like the real life Arnaud Amalric a cistercian monk, papal legate and inquisitor in the 1209 siege of Bezier during albigean crusade is supposed to have said
"kill them all, God will recognise his own" when he was asked how to differnciate Christian from Cathar.
if you add the influence of a certain artifcact...

[WhiteKnyght]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

I didn't say I was judging every Andrastian. But you have to admit that Andrastism's core principles and fundamentals are hypocritical.

They praise Andraste for freeing slaves and ending oppression, yet they've spent the last millennium imprisoning and oppressing innocent people just for being born with powers.

The Chant says not to harm innocents yet anybody who so much as gives an apostate food gets a death sentence.

The Tevinters are reviled because they conquered lands and forced their system on them. As are the Qunari. Yet the Chant of Light states when it is sung across the world the Maker will forgive them and create a paradise. And to achieve this the Chantry and it's Templar army subjugate anything they see as a threat to that.

They are what they hate.

Regarding the bolded bit, I  certainly don't want to get into a debate that parallels any modern religions, but I think you may be looking at a difference between the faith (and its core tenets) and the people that follow it. So while there is some inherent "good" within Andrastism (that looks to be spelled wrong...), it's the responsibility of those that take up the mantle and who profess to follow the faith to keep those tenets from being corrupted.

But, putting ideals in the hands of the fallible is always tricky. It's the mortal imperfections that skew the things that may in fact be something akin to perfection (if such a state exists).

So yes, some of the Chantry members/followers in the two games thus far have proven to be somewhat hypocritical, but there are others who uphold some pretty powerful ideals and seek to make Thedas a bit better.

Personally it looks like Andrastism was modeled to focus more on the negative parts of religons and less on what's good about religion.

Plus what good examples of Andrastians are there in DAO or DAII?

Elthina, who does nothing while people are wronged and oppressed?

Petrice, who thinks that killing and subjugating any contradiction of her beliefs is just?

The Grand Cleric from The Stolen Throne, who taunted Severan just for being a mage and told Maric that the Orlesian opression of Fereldan was the Maker's will and that he was wrong for rebelling and only changed her mind when Meghran threatened her?

Greagoir, who thinks no mage is worth saving and leaves them all, and his own men, at the mercy of the demons?

Cullen, who thinks you should kill everyone in the Harrowing chamber just to be on the safe side?

Meredith, who used her position to control Kirkwall(she let the coup against the old viscount and recommended Dumar because he was afraid to cross her) and be an ass long before she ever got the idol and went mad?

Wynne, who thinks all mages are lucky to be in theCircle just because she had a crappy childhood?

Leliana was the only decent member of the Chantry that I've seen, and arguably she has different beliefs than the rest of them.

[TEWR]

one thing that I think is that the Maker is the supreme god, and that both the Old Gods and the Elven Pantheon are lesser gods.

Each one has the ability to do godly things, but the Maker is the most powerful god of all.

[WhiteKnyght]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

*Goes Codex Diving*  I don't see how these basic principles are hypocritical.  Sure, any organization will have it's hypocrites and bad interpretations, but these seem like pretty good rules to live by:

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.


Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.

Foul and corrupt are they

Who have taken His gift

And turned it against His children.

They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.

They shall find no rest in this world

Or beyond.


All men are the Work of our Maker's Hands,

From the lowest slaves

To the highest kings.

Those who bring harm

Without provocation to the least of His children

Are hated and accursed by the Maker.


Those who bear false witness

And work to deceive others, know this:

There is but one Truth.

All things are known to our Maker

And He shall judge their lies.


All things in this world are finite.

What one man gains, another has lost.

Those who steal from their brothers and sisters

Do harm to their livelihood and to their peace of mind.

Our Maker sees this with a heavy heart.


--Transfigurations 1:1-5

We can argue all day whether the Maker exists and whether he's worth obeying, but I have a hard time seeing  these as bad, hypocritical principles.  "Use your gifts to serve others, do not attack/harm others (regardless of whether you could get away with it),  don't lie, and don't steal."

I've embolded the hypocritical areas and explained why they are being hypocritical.

- The Chantry and Templars use magic as an excuse to oppress innocent mages. Who are arguably the Maker's children as well. Not to mention that Templars use their magical abilities to incite fear and hopelessness in mages.

- Meredith, Petrice, and all the other zealots subjugate and kill without provocation. The Exalted March of the Dales for instance, and the Templars coming after Hawke and his friends after the Gallows incident.

- Templars steal people's children away from them and kill anyone who does absolutely anything against it.

Not to mention that nothing in the Chant says or entitles the Maker's followers to cage mages like animals. It just says that magic exists to serve man and not to rule. Arguably that could have been about Mind Domination, not magic as a whole.

As a whole, magic does serve man. It's the man who controls the magic, not the other way around.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 10 novembre 2011 - 12:11 .

[whykikyouwhy]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Plus what good examples of Andrastians are there in DAO or DAII?

It's a bit easier to track down decent templars versus folks in the order (because their names are not coming to mind right now): Alistair, Ser Thrask, Ser Wesley, Emeric, Moira, Cullen, to name a few.

No character is going to be perfect, and good intentions often do go awry. So too, Kirkwall is just a hotbed and a hellmouth of crazy (there's something in the water, after all - it's called Malvernis). So judging Andrastians by the examples in that city alone may not be the fairest assessment to give.

[LadyJaneGrey]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

*Goes Codex Diving*  I don't see how these basic principles are hypocritical.  Sure, any organization will have it's hypocrites and bad interpretations, but these seem like pretty good rules to live by:

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.


Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.

Foul and corrupt are they

Who have taken His gift

And turned it against His children.

They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.

They shall find no rest in this world

Or beyond.


All men are the Work of our Maker's Hands,

From the lowest slaves

To the highest kings.

Those who bring harm

Without provocation to the least of His children

Are hated and accursed by the Maker.


Those who bear false witness

And work to deceive others, know this:

There is but one Truth.

All things are known to our Maker

And He shall judge their lies.


All things in this world are finite.

What one man gains, another has lost.

Those who steal from their brothers and sisters

Do harm to their livelihood and to their peace of mind.

Our Maker sees this with a heavy heart.


--Transfigurations 1:1-5

We can argue all day whether the Maker exists and whether he's worth obeying, but I have a hard time seeing  these as bad, hypocritical principles.  "Use your gifts to serve others, do not attack/harm others (regardless of whether you could get away with it),  don't lie, and don't steal."

I've embolded the hypocritical areas and explained why they are being hypocritical.

- The Chantry and Templars use magic as an excuse to oppress innocent mages. Who are arguably the Maker's children as well. Not to mention that Templars use their magical abilities to incite fear and hopelessness in mages.

- Meredith, Petrice, and all the other zealots subjugate and kill without provocation. The Exalted March of the Dales for instance, and the Templars coming after Hawke and his friends after the Gallows incident.

- Templars steal people's children away from them and kill anyone who does absolutely anything against it.

...and I bolded the part where I pointed out that there are hypocrites and bad interpretations of the principles, but the principles themselves aren't hypocritical.

[WhiteKnyght]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Plus what good examples of Andrastians are there in DAO or DAII?

It's a bit easier to track down decent templars versus folks in the order (because their names are not coming to mind right now): Alistair, Ser Thrask, Ser Wesley, Emeric, Moira, Cullen, to name a few.

No character is going to be perfect, and good intentions often do go awry. So too, Kirkwall is just a hotbed and a hellmouth of crazy (there's something in the water, after all - it's called Malvernis). So judging Andrastians by the examples in that city alone may not be the fairest assessment to give.

Alistair left the Chantry and Templars because he knew he wasn't really the religious type. His belief in the Maker was fine but he didn't want to be devoted to it. And in DAII he is pro-mage.

Ser Thrask condoned the kidnapping of Hawke's loved ones to keep him from interfering.

Ser Wesley flat out said that Mages were worse than darkspawn and only stopped because he was injured and his scary wife told him to.

Emeric's real character was never explored. he was just heckbent on finding a killer.

Moira barely has five lines in the whole game.

Cullen acts polite but you can tell he agrees with Ser Alrik's extreme plan even if he doesn't vocalize it.

Also my examples included characters from Orlais and Ferelden. No malvernis there.

[AlexXIV]

She lies, most of what she says are lies. She wants Hawke to do her dirty work, and even if Hawke sides with the templars she will want him/her dead. I am not keeping anyone from giving her credit for whatever, but I don't believe that one word she ever spoke was even something close to a truth. If I wouldn't know better I'd say she is a pride or rage demon. Actually I don't know better. She may as well be one.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 novembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[whykikyouwhy]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Plus what good examples of Andrastians are there in DAO or DAII?

It's a bit easier to track down decent templars versus folks in the order (because their names are not coming to mind right now): Alistair, Ser Thrask, Ser Wesley, Emeric, Moira, Cullen, to name a few.

No character is going to be perfect, and good intentions often do go awry. So too, Kirkwall is just a hotbed and a hellmouth of crazy (there's something in the water, after all - it's called Malvernis). So judging Andrastians by the examples in that city alone may not be the fairest assessment to give.

Alistair left the Chantry and Templars because he knew he wasn't really the religious type. His belief in the Maker was fine but he didn't want to be devoted to it. And in DAII he is pro-mage.

Ser Thrask condoned the kidnapping of Hawke's loved ones to keep him from interfering.

Ser Wesley flat out said that Mages were worse than darkspawn and only stopped because he was injured and his scary wife told him to.

Emeric's real character was never explored. he was just heckbent on finding a killer.

Moira barely has five lines in the whole game.

Cullen acts polite but you can tell he agrees with Ser Alrik's extreme plan even if he doesn't vocalize it.

Also my examples included characters from Orlais and Ferelden. No malvernis there.

I've bolded the bit that I would like to reiterate.

We could go head to head over every single Thedan that we have met thus far and, if they follow the Maker/Andraste, weigh their level of good vs their potential for hypocrisy, but that seems a tiresome effort in lieu of that bolded point - simply, no mortal is going to be perfect. And the characters we have come to know are all shades and degrees of good and bad. Are there hypocrites? Sure, but their individual hypocrisies do not mean that the tenets themselves are hypocritical. It's in the application that there can be some faltering.

[jamesp81]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

I didn't say I was judging every Andrastian. But you have to admit that Andrastism's core principles and fundamentals are hypocritical.

No, I really don't have to admit that either.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Lol this is so funny. Meredith feels she is doing the Maker's work by slaughtering innocents out of prejudice. And believes she will be given a heavenly reward for it.

How is her invoking the Right of Annulment just because people will want someone to pay any different than what the Archon Hessarian did to Andraste?

I think the Chant of Light is a load of biased historical accounts and the rest pure crap, but I remember that one of the greatest sins mentioned in it is slaughtering innocents. And Meredith makes it plain as day that she knows the Circle is guiltless, but is gonna kill them anyway.

Andrastian hypcrisy at it's zenith. The name Maleficar is better suited for Meredith, not any of the blood mages I've seen throughout Origins and DAII.

She doesn't say that she is only annuling the Circle because the mob would watn it, she is saying that even if she didn't want to, she would still have to. That is the point alot of people can't seem to grasp.

[Herr Uhl]

I thought Andrastianism was formed by an angry mob killing mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Plus what good examples of Andrastians are there in DAO or DAII?

It's a bit easier to track down decent templars versus folks in the order (because their names are not coming to mind right now): Alistair, Ser Thrask, Ser Wesley, Emeric, Moira, Cullen, to name a few.

No character is going to be perfect, and good intentions often do go awry. So too, Kirkwall is just a hotbed and a hellmouth of crazy (there's something in the water, after all - it's called Malvernis). So judging Andrastians by the examples in that city alone may not be the fairest assessment to give.

Alistair left the Chantry and Templars because he knew he wasn't really the religious type. His belief in the Maker was fine but he didn't want to be devoted to it. And in DAII he is pro-mage.

Ser Thrask condoned the kidnapping of Hawke's loved ones to keep him from interfering.

Ser Wesley flat out said that Mages were worse than darkspawn and only stopped because he was injured and his scary wife told him to.

Emeric's real character was never explored. he was just heckbent on finding a killer.

Moira barely has five lines in the whole game.

Cullen acts polite but you can tell he agrees with Ser Alrik's extreme plan even if he doesn't vocalize it.

Also my examples included characters from Orlais and Ferelden. No malvernis there.

Alistair is not "pro-mage", he just wants a nationalized Circle instead of an international institution, there are still Templars, and a Chantry in Ferelden when he is king. He is also enough of a Templar to be prejudiced against apostates.

Thrask took precautions to try and prevent the Champion from interferring. How much of it was due blood magic influence is impossible to say. Doesn't change the fact that he was of Noble character and goal.

Ermenric's character is explored enough to gauge his personality. He obviously possess a fine sense of justice, and commitance to achieve his goals.

Isn't Moira the queen of ferelden who started the rebellion?

Cullen doesn't flat out agree with Alrik's proposal, he just says that there are argumens to be made in its favor. That is the same as saying "I can see why someone would want this". Doesn't mean you neccesarily agree, but that you can see the appeal.

Malvernis, Corypheus and that veil tear at the heart of Kirkwall, all factor into all of Kirkwall being a bad place to live, and its population going crazy. Sort of like Gotham City, which is placed on the grave of a warlock, an ancient indian burial ground, and all sorts of other nastiness.

[General User]

If you're going to accuse Andrastism itself of being hypocritical then you need to seriously analyze it's doctrines, not point out hypocritical Andrastians.

For example:
Saying on the one hand the Qun claims to value logic and order, yet on the other hand Sten violently and senselessly murdered innocent farmers, would not make the Qun itself hypocritical, it would just make Sten a failure in living up to the Qun.

But saying the Qun is hypocritical because, on the one hand, it claims to value logic and order, yet on the other hand it mandates the madness and chaos of murder and war over the loss of eminently replaceable and/or simple material objects would be a valid criticism of the Qun.

See the difference?

Modifié par General User, 10 novembre 2011 - 03:02 .

[Quething]

General User wrote...

If your going to accuse Andrasteism itself of being hypocritical than you need to seriously analyze it's doctrines, not point out hypocritical Andrastians.

For example:
Saying on the one hand the Qun claims to value logic and order, yet on the other hand Sten violently and senselessly murdered innocent farmers, would not make the Qun itself hypocritical, it would just make Sten a failure in living up to the Qun.

But saying the Qun is hypocritical because, on the one hand, it claims to value logic and order, yet on the other hand it mandates the madness and chaos of murder and war over the loss of eminently replaceable and/or simple material objects would be a valid criticism of the Qun.

See the difference?

Clearly BioWare needs to publish the entire Chant of Light somewhere.

[Herr Uhl]

Quething wrote...

Clearly BioWare needs to publish the entire Chant of Light somewhere.

It takes about two weeks straight to sing it. Writing the whole thing would be a gargantuan task.