217 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

I prefer things to be left vague. There shouldn't be some magical document that explains everything- and even if there was there is no way of knowing that such a document is reliable itself.

[BlueMagitek]

dragonflight288 wrote...
I cannot tell if you're trolling or not. Elves are just as capable as humans and dwarves are. Give an elf a sword, you have as much chance of them hurting themselves with it as a human or a dwarf. I also dislike you referring to Tabris as an 'it' and not a person.

Tabris isn't allowed to join the guard, despite his/her capability, because of his hertiage as an elf.

As for Ostagar, not a single elf fought. Not one. They were there as servants and messengers.

Tabris is my favorite origin. :happy:

Except that you can totally join the guard, no questions asked.  The Ferelden Guard are equal opportunity employers.

Yes, and that ended significantly better than fighting.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The games can't give us a true version that we will immediately and unanimously recognise as true, because all the information we get is filtered through NPCs and we'll inevitably devolve into arguing about the credibility of the sources. Even if the PC is magically teleported to a vision of the past we'll debate on whether the source of that vision was reliable or if our character was being deceived.

Word of God would have to tell us. But even Word of God can change.

[t0mm06]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I personally am not biased for or against the Chantry. However, I also know that history is inevitably written by the "victors". There are two sides to almost every story or point of view, and when you only hear one side, it is invariably skewed. Its not necessarily done with malicious intent, but simply a matter of only one side being preserved through time.

Or some things in the history taken out by the victors, things that would paint them in a negative light. The Dwarves did this concerning the survivors of Arlathan they housed, but then killed and didn't put it into the memories. The Chantry did this with the Canticle of Shartan and the Qunari can't admit their practices are amoral.

I'm not saying i agree with the Qunari, but this is a bit of a weird statment to make... 
I mean it implies that they know what they do is amoral be are pretending they dont think so, when its actually much more likely from their point of view it's not amoral. (as of course what is moral is subjective) 
They may (and actually do) see that taking away freedom is not evil when the result is no one having to starve, everyone working for the collective good, a more stable civilisation, crime being incredibly low, old people being taken care of (something we still dont have right nowadays.

[dragonflight288]

BlueMagitek wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
I cannot tell if you're trolling or not. Elves are just as capable as humans and dwarves are. Give an elf a sword, you have as much chance of them hurting themselves with it as a human or a dwarf. I also dislike you referring to Tabris as an 'it' and not a person.

Tabris isn't allowed to join the guard, despite his/her capability, because of his hertiage as an elf.

As for Ostagar, not a single elf fought. Not one. They were there as servants and messengers.

Tabris is my favorite origin. :happy:

Except that you can totally join the guard, no questions asked.  The Ferelden Guard are equal opportunity employers.

Yes, and that ended significantly better than fighting.

Up until Howe is in charge, at least. And Vaugn doesn't seem the type to allow any elves the right to rise in anything. Not with his statement later in the game (for non-city elf wardens) that elves occasionally get the ideas that they're people.

so....saying that elves going to Ostagar as servants ended better for them than fighting? I agree in that battle, but they're still not really allowed to rise above the status of servant in most human countries.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 15 octobre 2013 - 05:51 .

[dragonflight288]

t0mm06 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I personally am not biased for or against the Chantry. However, I also know that history is inevitably written by the "victors". There are two sides to almost every story or point of view, and when you only hear one side, it is invariably skewed. Its not necessarily done with malicious intent, but simply a matter of only one side being preserved through time.

Or some things in the history taken out by the victors, things that would paint them in a negative light. The Dwarves did this concerning the survivors of Arlathan they housed, but then killed and didn't put it into the memories. The Chantry did this with the Canticle of Shartan and the Qunari can't admit their practices are amoral.

I'm not saying i agree with the Qunari, but this is a bit of a weird statment to make... 
I mean it implies that they know what they do is amoral be are pretending they dont think so, when its actually much more likely from their point of view it's not amoral. (as of course what is moral is subjective) 
They may (and actually do) see that taking away freedom is not evil when the result is no one having to starve, everyone working for the collective good, a more stable civilisation, crime being incredibly low, old people being taken care of (something we still dont have right nowadays.

They destroy the minds and personalities of those who refuse to convert. They use convert-or-die tactics when entering new areas (Fenris confirms this in DA2 at the end of Act 2) and they find the idea of individual wants to be outside the Qun, and you can be killed if you want something for yourself beyond your role, as you will be declared Talvashoth.

I don't agree with their practices concerning mages either, but that's another can of worms that still gets debated, and probably will be debated until the end of time.

Overall, I find the Qunari completely amoral and all pragmatism.

[The Hierophant]

We already know about the Chantry's founding. What's unknown are the Andrastian cults that predate it.

[Jaison1986]

I think the Qunari are far worse then the Chantry. They sacrifice too much to achieve their idyllic society. Their members are not persons any more. They have their free will taken from them and are forced to accept their roles in society forever. However, it's not like the Chantry is better, since they declare anyone that does not fall to their banner heathens and suffer a lot of prejudice and segregation.

[dragonflight288]

The Hierophant wrote...

We already know about the Chantry's founding. What's unknown are the Andrastian cults that predate it.

There could be any number of creation stories of Andrastian cults. Andraste dies, her followers in the South disperse and start debating over her teachings and which one fits their own idealogoy. The Haven branch had Revered Fathers and allowed mages into positions of spiritual leadership, while Kolgrim led them all as a warrior. The Chantry only allows women into the priesthood and allied with the templars, once the Inquisition of old, and allied with Drakon.

We may end up meeting another wayward Andrastian cult with their own records of that time period.

[azarhal]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

We already know about the Chantry's founding. What's unknown are the Andrastian cults that predate it.

There could be any number of creation stories of Andrastian cults. Andraste dies, her followers in the South disperse and start debating over her teachings and which one fits their own idealogoy. The Haven branch had Revered Fathers and allowed mages into positions of spiritual leadership, while Kolgrim led them all as a warrior. The Chantry only allows women into the priesthood and allied with the templars, once the Inquisition of old, and allied with Drakon.

We may end up meeting another wayward Andrastian cult with their own records of that time period.

The Tevinter Chantry pre-date Drakon's and they always allowed men to raise above the rank of brother and mages in their ranks. It seems that the Haven's cult is closer to the Tevinter's version than the one Drakon's created.

[Dave of Canada]

Let faith remain faith rather than bringing your anti-religion crusade into fictional materials.

[dragonflight288]

azarhal wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

We already know about the Chantry's founding. What's unknown are the Andrastian cults that predate it.

There could be any number of creation stories of Andrastian cults. Andraste dies, her followers in the South disperse and start debating over her teachings and which one fits their own idealogoy. The Haven branch had Revered Fathers and allowed mages into positions of spiritual leadership, while Kolgrim led them all as a warrior. The Chantry only allows women into the priesthood and allied with the templars, once the Inquisition of old, and allied with Drakon.

We may end up meeting another wayward Andrastian cult with their own records of that time period.

The Tevinter Chantry pre-date Drakon's and they always allowed men to raise above the rank of brother and mages in their ranks. It seems that the Haven's cult is closer to the Tevinter's version than the one Drakon's created.

It's also possible, save their abandoning their duties to the Maker in favor of the dragon-Andraste, that before that happened they were closer to what Andraste practiced.

Or I may be wrong. That's why I would like more lore.

[Jaulen]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Those who say the Chantry's doctrine is all stories and propaganda have a description of events. Namely, that the Chantry lied and covered up the truth.

Well, there's definitely precedent for them having done so.

I'm not saying there isn't. But so far, Bioware has leaned (slightly) more towards the side of the Chantry's version, including events that play out at the Urn, as well as how it seems Corypheus was exactly who and what the Chantry's version described him being. 

There are many alternative explanations for both of these, for sure. But Bioware is, at least, saying there are some rather large kernels of truth in the Chantry's version of events. 

Any good lie will have kernals of truth.

[RepHope]

[quote]Jaulen 


[/quote]


Any good lie will have kernals of truth.
[/quote]
But is the Chantry lying? Or are the Chantry's enemies lying to make themselves seem credible?

[Jaulen]

@RepHope

Well....considering we get more nuggets that the 'truth' the Chantry espouses isn't 100% correct after all.....I'd say the truth is weighted to the Chantry enemies ..... but neither of them have full ownership of the correct events.

I'm okay with it being ambiguous. And having BW drop more nuggets of truths and lies into our laps.

[azarhal]

dragonflight288 wrote...

azarhal wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

We already know about the Chantry's founding. What's unknown are the Andrastian cults that predate it.

There could be any number of creation stories of Andrastian cults. Andraste dies, her followers in the South disperse and start debating over her teachings and which one fits their own idealogoy. The Haven branch had Revered Fathers and allowed mages into positions of spiritual leadership, while Kolgrim led them all as a warrior. The Chantry only allows women into the priesthood and allied with the templars, once the Inquisition of old, and allied with Drakon.

We may end up meeting another wayward Andrastian cult with their own records of that time period.

The Tevinter Chantry pre-date Drakon's and they always allowed men to raise above the rank of brother and mages in their ranks. It seems that the Haven's cult is closer to the Tevinter's version than the one Drakon's created.

It's also possible, save their abandoning their duties to the Maker in favor of the dragon-Andraste, that before that happened they were closer to what Andraste practiced.

Or I may be wrong. That's why I would like more lore.

Female only leaders is a post-Maferath's betrayal thing, all men (male) are paying for his crime (it's explained in World of Thedas).

As for Andraste herself, I don't think she created a clergy with rites and dogma. It's not mentioned in the lore, despite her life being well documented (in WoT). The only thing you can find is interpretations at this point.

[dragonflight288]

azarhal wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

azarhal wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

We already know about the Chantry's founding. What's unknown are the Andrastian cults that predate it.

There could be any number of creation stories of Andrastian cults. Andraste dies, her followers in the South disperse and start debating over her teachings and which one fits their own idealogoy. The Haven branch had Revered Fathers and allowed mages into positions of spiritual leadership, while Kolgrim led them all as a warrior. The Chantry only allows women into the priesthood and allied with the templars, once the Inquisition of old, and allied with Drakon.

We may end up meeting another wayward Andrastian cult with their own records of that time period.

The Tevinter Chantry pre-date Drakon's and they always allowed men to raise above the rank of brother and mages in their ranks. It seems that the Haven's cult is closer to the Tevinter's version than the one Drakon's created.

It's also possible, save their abandoning their duties to the Maker in favor of the dragon-Andraste, that before that happened they were closer to what Andraste practiced.

Or I may be wrong. That's why I would like more lore.

Female only leaders is a post-Maferath's betrayal thing, all men (male) are paying for his crime (it's explained in World of Thedas).

As for Andraste herself, I don't think she created a clergy with rites and dogma. It's not mentioned in the lore, despite her life being well documented (in WoT). The only thing you can find is interpretations at this point.

But the Chantry didn't rise until a century after her death. They were just one of many Andrastian cults with their own interpretation. They believe that women should hold the priesthood instead of men as a way to make up for Mafarath's betrayal, but it would be interesting to meet another Andrastian cult that survived the ages that have Revered Fathers and Revered Mothers with records going back that far.

It wouldn't be complete without their own biases, but it would be interesting to see those same events from the perspective of believers who interpret things completely differently from the Chantry that rose with Orlais.

[AFG-47]

dragonflight288 wrote...

t0mm06 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I personally am not biased for or against the Chantry. However, I also know that history is inevitably written by the "victors". There are two sides to almost every story or point of view, and when you only hear one side, it is invariably skewed. Its not necessarily done with malicious intent, but simply a matter of only one side being preserved through time.

Or some things in the history taken out by the victors, things that would paint them in a negative light. The Dwarves did this concerning the survivors of Arlathan they housed, but then killed and didn't put it into the memories. The Chantry did this with the Canticle of Shartan and the Qunari can't admit their practices are amoral.

I'm not saying i agree with the Qunari, but this is a bit of a weird statment to make... 
I mean it implies that they know what they do is amoral be are pretending they dont think so, when its actually much more likely from their point of view it's not amoral. (as of course what is moral is subjective) 
They may (and actually do) see that taking away freedom is not evil when the result is no one having to starve, everyone working for the collective good, a more stable civilisation, crime being incredibly low, old people being taken care of (something we still dont have right nowadays.

They destroy the minds and personalities of those who refuse to convert. They use convert-or-die tactics when entering new areas (Fenris confirms this in DA2 at the end of Act 2) and they find the idea of individual wants to be outside the Qun, and you can be killed if you want something for yourself beyond your role, as you will be declared Talvashoth.

I don't agree with their practices concerning mages either, but that's another can of worms that still gets debated, and probably will be debated until the end of time.

Overall, I find the Qunari completely amoral and all pragmatism.

The issue though is that what you see as amoral or wrong is not necessarily a universal standard. If according to the Qunari what they're doing is right, then in their minds they are acting morally by killing people who reject the Qun.

[dragonflight288]

The issue though is that what you see as amoral or wrong is not
necessarily a universal standard. If according to the Qunari what
they're doing is right, then in their minds they are acting morally by
killing people who reject the Qun.

And thus, when they write their history, they will leave out anything they felt they did was wrong. Or even leave out any notion that they were in the wrong at all.

Every winner does this to some extent.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 15 octobre 2013 - 11:36 .

[BlueMagitek]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Up until Howe is in charge, at least. And Vaugn doesn't seem the type to allow any elves the right to rise in anything. Not with his statement later in the game (for non-city elf wardens) that elves occasionally get the ideas that they're people.

so....saying that elves going to Ostagar as servants ended better for them than fighting? I agree in that battle, but they're still not really allowed to rise above the status of servant in most human countries.

Except that we totally see that all races are allowed to join the guard.  This is an intended part of the game that is possible to bypass, but why do you continue to ignore it?  Even if you do bypass it, that doesn't change recruitment.

Yup!  They're also allowed to live just fine in human villages (Surana Origin).

[myahele]

I wouldnt mind learning the truth about the chantry now its lost most of its military and political power. Maybe in a dlc or a new game. Though it seems like with leliana and cassandra playing a major role this game I think we'll gett the answers we're se3king.

It's kinda a common trope to discredit a religious org

[LobselVith8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Except that we totally see that all races are allowed to join the guard.  This is an intended part of the game that is possible to bypass, but why do you continue to ignore it?  Even if you do bypass it, that doesn't change recruitment.

I don't think it's quite that simplistic, given how we only meet one elven guard in the entirety of Ferelden and Kirkwall (which I mostly credit Aveline with), and only hear one reference to it in the Elven City Origin.

BlueMagitek wrote...

Yup!  They're also allowed to live just fine in human villages (Surana Origin). 

In stables and outbuildings.

[LobselVith8]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

In stables and outbuildings. 

The games disagree with you. 

Aveline explicitly says otherwise to Merrill.

EntropicAngel wrote...

Merril, a single elf, has a decent sized home, and the elven Warden's family of three has a larger home that my mother's family of fifteen did. 

Merrill's home could be a result of Varric or Hawke. And the elven Warden's father had some money. That said, you seem to have missed the fact that I'm addressing the conditions of elves in human villages. Aveline cites where the elves in Lothering lived since the elves couldn't be put in an Alienage.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 16 octobre 2013 - 03:23 .