353 réponses à ce sujet

[Massa FX]

I think the Qunari are fascinating and would love to learn more about them. I also was attracted to the Arishok. My FemHawke thought they had a moment when their eyes met in the square. I wish he didn't have to die... but he bought that on himself.

So, yes I would love more Qunari in future games.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

This implies that "Christianity" equates to "religion." It's entirely plausible, even likely, that many people will be annoyed at Christianity for numerous valid reasons without assuming that the entire concept of religion is terrible.

[Noctis Augustus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

I hate Christianity and Islamism and I like Roman Polytheism,  Shintoism and Buddhism. I'm Atheist. You're telling me I'm anti-religion? There's a difference between anti-christianity and anti-religion you do know that don't you?

In the DA universe I like the Old Gods and hate Andrastianism. Am I still anti-religion?

[Silfren]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

Funnily enough, the only one asserting that I was referring to Christianity in very general terms here, was YOU.  

I could as easily say that biases from real-world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-Chantry/Templar and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Mage.  It cuts both ways:  if those of us who see real world parallels in the Chantry find that sufficient to oppose the idea of the Chantry are bring our own biases to the game, so too are people who insist on seeing the Chantry as a totally benevolent organization above criticism, also bringing their own real-world biases to the game.

Modifié par Silfren, 04 mai 2013 - 02:46 .

[Silfren]

ibbikiookami wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

I hate Christianity and Islamism and I like Roman Polytheism,  Shintoism and Buddhism. I'm Atheist. You're telling me I'm anti-religion? There's a difference between anti-christianity and anti-religion you do know that don't you?

In the DA universe I like the Old Gods and hate Andrastianism. Am I still anti-religion?

Never minding that plenty of religious people can and do despise certain religious institutions.  Being anti-religion does not in any way single out Christianity, as was implied by a poster smart enough to know better.  To bring this back to DA terms, being anti-Chantry is NOT the same as being anti-Andrastianism.

[Dave of Canada]

Silfren wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

Funnily enough, the only one asserting that I was referring to Christianity in very general terms here, was YOU.  

That's why I said "christianity and such".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 04 mai 2013 - 02:48 .

[Xilizhra]

That's why I said "christianity and such".

You also said "anti-religion."

[robertthebard]

MisterJB wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Why did they feel the need to get involved in a purely political war, if that's what it was?  Oh yeah, because of the "out of context" passage from the Chant, you know, the basis for their religion.  The thing they have to have sung from all corners of the world before the Maker forgives the sins of humans.  The Maker was denied access to the Dales, Exalted March.  Since when is religious intolerance acceptable?  Since it's practiced by the Chantry?  Isn't religious intolerance one of the reasons for the OP to wipe out the Qun?  Stands to reason that if religious intolerance is bad, then it's bad no matter who practices it.

I don't begrudge people the right to practice their religions, no matter what it is, but if they show up at my door trying to force me to convert, or attempting to "burn the Heathen at the stake", I'm taking as many of them with me as I can.  You want to worship the Maker, fine, do it over there, but you're not doing it in my home.  Sadly, while I see that as honoring their right to worship the Maker, leaving me free for whatever, the Chantry sees that as denying the Maker, thus opposing Him, thus justifying enacting that passage all over again.  You claim out of context, I claim justification to declare an Exalted March.

Yes, the Chantry wishes for the Chant to be sung from all the corners of the world. but, from what we have seen, their methods of spreading their faith are mostly peaceful.

In Ferelden, we saw missionaries being sent to the Chansind. In Orzammar, more missionaries who spread their fath by preaching, sheltering and feeding the Casteless. In Ferelden itself, page 47 of "The World of Thedas" states that the Chantry does not demand the removal of promote hatred against the old gods of the alamarri (Fereldans' ancestors), the Maker simply stands above them. The Grey Wardens converted because Drakon helped the Anderfels against the Darkspawn.
And we are also told that the Chantry sent missionaries to the Dales to spread the Andrastian faith. This is not a forceful attempt at conversion, the missionaries would have simply preached to whoever would listen and that was it. But the elves closed their borders on the basis that humans are disease spreading rats; which is why I said that as far as intolerance goes, the dalish have the Chantry beaten.

The Exalted March was not called because the elves refused to convert. The March was called only as the elves marched upon Val-Royeaux which is the seat of the Chantry and which they eventually sacked. Had the Divine packed her bags and left, people would accuse her of deserting their flock.
Instead, she called for a March to defend the faith and humanity itself and people acuse her of not being politically neutral. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If you try to destroy the greatest human nation in Thedas and sack the seat of their religion, don't cry "foul" and act surprised if the humans have something to say about it.

And BTW, the Chantry has never burned anyone at the stake, that was Tevinter. People need to let the real world baggage go.

Sadly, we are all formed by our life experiences.  Not that anyone has tried to burn me at the stake, per se, but I have been the brunt of plenty of the Chantry style religious intolerance.  It's not a switch that I can turn off.

I can, however, keep it to the facts, and the facts don't support "peaceful".  You allow the Chantry to infiltrate Orzammar.  I don't, and if you set it up so the dwarf girl goes to study at the Circle, and the mages decide to build a Circle in Orzammar, the Chantry doesn't consider peaceful infiltration, they consider an Exalted March.  Nothing I've seen indicated they actually did, but instead of realizing that a sovereign Nation that doesn't worship the Maker is beyond the sphere of their control, they consider going to war.  Seems like a pretty peaceful religion to me, I guess you're right.

The wiki disagrees, as does the tale Leliana details in Party camp, although she does state nobody knows who struck first, until, anyway, we come to the forums, and find out "oh that, well, the elves started it because reasons".  Wait for it:  Orlais and the Dales were having border skirmishes.  Is this the same Orlais that had invaded the Free Marches and Ferelden?  Why, of course it is.  So, despite claims to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that Orlais struck first, figuring to do what we've already known them to do, expand their empire.  Why would I believe otherwise, given what I know of Orlesian history?  Because it's just the elves?  It is of note that Orlais wound up in control of the Dales after the war, I wonder why that is?  Because that was their intention from the beginning, and this particular Chantry is based in Orlais?  Yep, peaceful organization.

Just another note, the lore tells us that it is indeed the humans that caused the elves to lose their immortality, so being right means that they need to be exterminated/dominated.  Yep, peaceful organization.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

That's why I said "christianity and such".

You also said "anti-religion."

If you want to argue technicalities, sure. The fact that you're anti-certain-religion-groups-and-everything-they-do and it influences your in-game beliefs doesn't make it any better.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 04 mai 2013 - 03:00 .

[Silfren]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

Funnily enough, the only one asserting that I was referring to Christianity in very general terms here, was YOU.  

That's why I said "christianity and such".

Fact is you specifically named Christianity, but the whole of your post makes it clear that you assume being anti-Chantry equates to being anti-religion.  It can, and I won't deny that it sometimes does for many people; but to just assume it outright does ignores that most of us do specifically condemn the Chantry in particular, not religion itself.  The Chantry IS directly correlatable to the RCC, obviously, but to assume that criticism of either must automatically extend to religion as a whole is fallacious.  And you know this, I know you do.

Modifié par Silfren, 04 mai 2013 - 03:01 .

[Xilizhra]

The US Framers and Mandela are hardly the best examples. They fought for liberty, but not in the libertarian sense. They tried to balance individual freedom with what was good for society as a whole. They both set up central governments, implemented many laws, etc.. Thomas Jefferson is a bit of an exception, since he was the most libertarian of the bunch -- but the United States was framed more by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers than it was Jefferson's Confederacy of states. Even Jefferson gave in to Hamilton's idea of centralized Federal control once he became the third president.

It does not require one to be libertarian to oppose the control of bigoted religious empires.

If you want to argue technicalities, sure. The fact that you're anti-certain-religion-groups-and-everything-they-do and it influences your decisions doesn't make it any better.

I'm not anti-everything they do. Just their philosophies, reasons and social policies. In any case, none of it changes that the Chantry is terrible on its own merits.

[Xilizhra]

StreetMagic wrote...

In this world, I think it does require you to be a libertarian (especially in the circle of magi sense). The chantry is being reasonable.

The chantry needs to be more flexible in it's laws, but it's founding and/or the general idea of it isn't oppressive. "Magic must serve man, and never rule over him." In my mind at least, arguing against that principle means you're up to no good. It doesn't matter to me if it comes from the Chantry or from some other group. The idea makes sense to me. I think mages who disagree with it want too much freedom - making them libertarian types. And ultimately, with libertarians, you get no accountability for anything. The rules just end up becoming "Might Makes Right, Survival of the Fittest, damn what it does to society.. only my freedom matters. Waaaah."

The principle is useless when backed up by the viciousness of the implementation, especially as it's so dependent on interpretation. To kick out a religious organization that has no place implementing laws to begin with and create a more equal structure is by no means an attempt to advocate for complete anarchy.

[Noctis Augustus]

Silfren wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

I hate Christianity and Islamism and I like Roman Polytheism,  Shintoism and Buddhism. I'm Atheist. You're telling me I'm anti-religion? There's a difference between anti-christianity and anti-religion you do know that don't you?

In the DA universe I like the Old Gods and hate Andrastianism. Am I still anti-religion?

Never minding that plenty of religious people can and do despise certain religious institutions.  Being anti-religion does not in any way single out Christianity, as was implied by a poster smart enough to know better.  To bring this back to DA terms, being anti-Chantry is NOT the same as being anti-Andrastianism.

To me they're both too intertwined, I don't know how to distinguish Andrastianism as a whole from the Chantry version. Unless you mean the organization called Chantry.

[Xilizhra]

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

Strawman. It's not about the idea of not having laws, but about who's making those laws and what they do.

[robertthebard]

StreetMagic wrote...

In this world, I think it does require you to be a libertarian (especially in the circle of magi sense). The chantry is being reasonable.

The chantry needs to be more flexible in it's laws, but it's founding and/or the general idea of it isn't oppressive. "Magic must serve man, and never rule over him." In my mind at least, arguing against that principle means you're up to no good. It doesn't matter to me if it comes from the Chantry or from some other group. The idea makes sense to me. I think mages who disagree with it want too much freedom - making them libertarian types. And ultimately, with libertarians, you get no accountability for anything. The rules just end up becoming "Might Makes Right, Survival of the Fittest, damn what it does to society.. only my freedom matters. Waaaah."

So tell me, what about the dwarves has anything to do with magic?  But if a Circle is built in Orzammar, as I mentioned in my last post, instead of recognizing that Orzammar is beyond their sphere of control, they consider trying to add it to their sphere of control.  It's of note that they didn't leave any surviving elves to run the Dales, but instead Orlais took ownership while the elves were forced to either become homeless nomads, or forced to live in Alienages, where they could be controlled and re-educated to suit the Chantry.  Seems pretty oppressive to me, but I guess that despite being 50 years old, I'm just a kid rebelling against my parents, and don't understand the meaning of the word oppression?

[Xilizhra]

StreetMagic wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

Strawman. It's not about the idea of not having laws, but about who's making those laws and what they do.

Ok, fair enough. Personally, I don't care who makes those laws. I've said elsewhere it'd be ideal if mages (wise mages) kicked the crap out of the worst kind of apostates and policed themselves. And even ruled Tevinter.. but responsibly.

The Chantry is still useful though.. It's one thing to have principles, but sometimes, a cohesive worldview/religion/philosophy offers just the right push to get people to understand those principles easier. It's not necessary, but it's useful.

It might be, but that religion needs to be very heavily revised. Preferably through revolution/Reformation.

[Silfren]

StreetMagic wrote...

In this world, I think it does require you to be a libertarian (especially in the circle of magi sense). The chantry is being reasonable.

The chantry needs to be more flexible in it's laws, but it's founding and/or the general idea of it isn't oppressive. "Magic must serve man, and never rule over him." In my mind at least, arguing against that principle means you're up to no good. It doesn't matter to me if it comes from the Chantry or from some other group. The idea makes sense to me. I think mages who disagree with it want too much freedom - making them libertarian types. And ultimately, with libertarians, you get no accountability for anything. The rules just end up becoming "Might Makes Right, Survival of the Fittest, damn what it does to society.. only my freedom matters. Waaaah."

Thing is, the Chantry is just one form of Andrastianism.  After Andraste's death there were a number of Andrastian cults.  It is very telling that Emperor Drakon took one and bound up the idea that the Chant must be sung from all the corners of the world with his expansionist ambitions: he specifically used religious justification to build his empire. The Orlesian Chantry cannot be said to be a neutral organization whose sole purpose for existing is benign spiritual shepherding.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

Strawman. It's not about the idea of not having laws, but about who's making those laws and what they do.

Actually, it's not much of a strawman, as it is quite true.  Unfortunately, Street refuses to acknowledge that the power granted by the Chantry to the Chantry over mages falls into the same category.

However, his "only children believe that exercising complete control of other beings is bad" does fit into the strawman point, since I'm 50, and vehemently disagree.  I realize he's probably 21 and thinks he knows how the world works, and he won't figure out until he's about 50 that not only does he not have all the answers, he doesn't even know what all the questions are.

In before "I'm actually much older than that, so **** you very much".  How does it feel to be categorized for holding an opinion?

[Silfren]

ibbikiookami wrote...

Silfren wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And maybe you need to acknowledge that the Chantry's actions have enough real world parallels that our objections and criticisms are valid. 

And that's when the anti-religion comments come in, everyone goes about how evil christianity and such are but when it's mentioned, people always backpedal and claim "stop claiming we're anti-religion!". It's like that one poster who hated western civilization and kept calling every other religion aside from her own ignorant and cruel but she was being defended by most mage posters with the very same reasoning.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, biases from real world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-mage and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Chantry/Templar. You can't keep claiming "we don't hate religion" when everyone--including the writers--sees most of these arguments being driven by such.

I hate Christianity and Islamism and I like Roman Polytheism,  Shintoism and Buddhism. I'm Atheist. You're telling me I'm anti-religion? There's a difference between anti-christianity and anti-religion you do know that don't you?

In the DA universe I like the Old Gods and hate Andrastianism. Am I still anti-religion?

Never minding that plenty of religious people can and do despise certain religious institutions.  Being anti-religion does not in any way single out Christianity, as was implied by a poster smart enough to know better.  To bring this back to DA terms, being anti-Chantry is NOT the same as being anti-Andrastianism.

To me they're both too intertwined, I don't know how to distinguish Andrastianism as a whole from the Chantry version. Unless you mean the organization called Chantry.

In general terms, yes, in nations such as Orlais or Ferelden, where the Orlesian Chantry has a firm hold, Andrastianism is for the most part intimately bound up with Chantryism.  But on the individual level, the issue is MUCH more complex. 

Anders is a great example; he's definitely an Andrastian but he despises the Chantry.  Leliana, I think, is another.  She's more sympathetic to the Chantry, but clearly has her own ideas not informed by Chantry doctrine. 

The people of Haven are another example of people who are Andrastians but not Chantryists.  I'm also willing to bet that nations that have a Chantry presence, but which are also influenced by other forces, cultural and religious (Rivain being one, with its cultural traditions of free seers and also a competing Qunari presence), are likely to be markedly different from mainsream Chantry philosopies.  The differences may be significant or not, but if there is any realism to be had, they'll definitely be there, in the general populace if not within the official Chantry ranks.

DA3 has a great foundation for seeing the Orlesian Chantry disintegrate through reformation into a number of different Andrastian sects. 

Modifié par Silfren, 04 mai 2013 - 03:39 .

[billy the squid]

I want the option of helping the Qun.

Thus all people who are socially and morally corrosive to the new society can be re educated in a single place, or provide a benefit to society as a whole in the form of camps where hard labour will be reward in itself, by removing the aspect of individual wish fulfilment, for the betterment of the whole.

Ipso facto, mages should be placed on leashes, to and controlled by their handlers, while the chantry should be removed due to it's corrupt nature and the enlightenment of the Qun spread to all.