1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Qistina wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
I'd suggest for you and others to take a small trip to /r/AskHistorian on the Dark Ages issue.

Subreddit is run by actual historians, so it's not just some random internet dudes.

You can check this Wikipedia article on it as well.

But yes, the Chantry is very allegorical to the Catholic Church. It's just not as dark as many people believe it is.

It depends on which historians...surely modern western historians will try to deny Dark Age. Instead of "Dark Age", they prefer to use "Medieval"

Arabs don't shy with "Jahiliyah" Age that is similar to Dark Age

Don't liking the past doesn't make it untrue

I'm fairly sure that their salient point was in simply pointing out that there are a great many misconceptions about the medieval era.  And this is, unfortunately, true.  A lot of people's ideas about that period are completely untrue and stem from the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. 
 
It isn't about "denying" the dark ages, or disliking the past; it's about separating fact from fiction.  It bears repeating that most people's perceptions of the medieval period are woefully inaccurate.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

The Chantry and Orlais are so closely connected that there is no way that one could be said to act without the other.  People tend to forget that Orlais is not only is the modern day seat of the Chantry, but where the Chantry began.  The very empire of Orlais was built around Emperor Drakon's religious zeal and his intention to spread the Chant of Light to all the corners of the world via imperial conquest.

I disagree. The Chantry and Orlais are both perfectly capable of acting independently of eachother. Usually however their End Game coincides with eachother's. The Chantry certainly weren't against the war with the Dales. But the Chantry itself weren't involved until the Exalted March was called.

[CroGamer002]

Qistina wrote...

It depends on which historians...surely modern western historians will try to deny Dark Age. Instead of "Dark Age", they prefer to use "Medieval"

Arabs don't shy with "Jahiliyah" Age that is similar to Dark Age

Don't liking the past doesn't make it untrue

Completely untrue.

All historians agree Dark Ages is a nonsense, which includes many non-Westerns. The whole "dark ages" thing is created by Ancient Greece and Roman Empire fanboys from Renascence and 19th century. Yes, I'm using the word. Very blunt, but very correct.
They were just whining there for such great empire like Alexander's Macedonia, Roman Empire nor mythical great democracy they had.


Also Jahiliyyah is less historic and more religious claim. It flat out says that pagans and nomadic ways were just inferior to Islam.
While it's very true that after Islam Revolution, standard of living had increased by a lot in Muslim controlled countries and Muslims become lead in scientific advances( which were many and major) until Mongol invasion, it's still a bit pretentious and biased claim just to glorify Islam.

Silfren wrote...

I'm fairly sure that their salient point was in simply pointing out that there are a great many misconceptions about the medieval era.  And this is, unfortunately, true.  A lot of people's ideas about that period are completely untrue and stem from the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. 
 
It isn't about "denying" the dark ages, or disliking the past; it's about separating fact from fiction.  It bears repeating that most people's perceptions of the medieval period are woefully inaccurate.

Well put.

I'm very glad when Bioware was creating the Andrestian religion and the Chantry, they went for historical and not mainstream fictional "history" for inspirations.

Modifié par Mesina2, 29 octobre 2013 - 10:02 .

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The Chantry and Orlais are so closely connected that there is no way that one could be said to act without the other.  People tend to forget that Orlais is not only is the modern day seat of the Chantry, but where the Chantry began.  The very empire of Orlais was built around Emperor Drakon's religious zeal and his intention to spread the Chant of Light to all the corners of the world via imperial conquest.

I disagree. The Chantry and Orlais are both perfectly capable of acting independently of eachother. Usually however their End Game coincides with eachother's. The Chantry certainly weren't against the war with the Dales. But the Chantry itself weren't involved until the Exalted March was called.

I agree. While the Chantry and Orlais are connected by their past, Celene has clearly shown that she has her own schemes that are completely independent and not controlled by the Chantry. At some points, I feel like she and her nobles could care less about the Chantry.

Modifié par eluvianix, 29 octobre 2013 - 01:20 .

[Estelindis]

How is a thread with so much real-life religion bashing still open?  Maybe I am misunderstanding forum guidelines, but is there not a lot of breaching going on here?

Modifié par Estelindis, 29 octobre 2013 - 01:18 .

[Hellion Rex]

Estelindis wrote...

How is a thread with so much real-life religion bashing still open?  Maybe I am misunderstanding forum guidelines, but is there not a lot of breaching going on here?

Hardly. Trust me, this is completely tame compared to the way some other threads go down. 

[dragonflight288]

It probably helps that every time it's happened (thus far) someone has come in and brought it back into the in-game setting by making it clear they don't judge the Chantry based on real life religions, but on the Chantry's actions.

[Bleachrude]

dragonflight288 wrote...

@ ShadowLord

Adding on to number 3 of your list. Not only did the Chantry not say anything about Orlais occupying Ferelden and stay silent while the Orlesians abused the Fereldens horribly, they actively supported them in the war between them, to the point of lending the Orlesians as many mages from the Circle as the Orlesians felt they needed, and denied Fereldens any mages at all.

They only started changing their tune when it became obvious that Ferelden has started winning the war, and they realized their support of Orlais could, and in fact nearly did, get them kicked out of Ferelden.

Bad example.

The Nevarrans overtook the Blasted Lands but from reading the books, the blasted lands have been orlesian in all but name since they were called the blasted lands. 

The Chantry hasn't said peep about Neverra being an aggressor,....

[dragonflight288]

Bleachrude wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

@ ShadowLord

Adding on to number 3 of your list. Not only did the Chantry not say anything about Orlais occupying Ferelden and stay silent while the Orlesians abused the Fereldens horribly, they actively supported them in the war between them, to the point of lending the Orlesians as many mages from the Circle as the Orlesians felt they needed, and denied Fereldens any mages at all.

They only started changing their tune when it became obvious that Ferelden has started winning the war, and they realized their support of Orlais could, and in fact nearly did, get them kicked out of Ferelden.

Bad example.

The Nevarrans overtook the Blasted Lands but from reading the books, the blasted lands have been orlesian in all but name since they were called the blasted lands. 

The Chantry hasn't said peep about Neverra being an aggressor,....

I never mentioned Nevarra. I was talking about Ferelden.

[Bleachrude]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

@ ShadowLord

Adding on to number 3 of your list. Not only did the Chantry not say anything about Orlais occupying Ferelden and stay silent while the Orlesians abused the Fereldens horribly, they actively supported them in the war between them, to the point of lending the Orlesians as many mages from the Circle as the Orlesians felt they needed, and denied Fereldens any mages at all.

They only started changing their tune when it became obvious that Ferelden has started winning the war, and they realized their support of Orlais could, and in fact nearly did, get them kicked out of Ferelden.

Bad example.

The Nevarrans overtook the Blasted Lands but from reading the books, the blasted lands have been orlesian in all but name since they were called the blasted lands. 

The Chantry hasn't said peep about Neverra being an aggressor,....

I never mentioned Nevarra. I was talking about Ferelden.

I know that, but I believe the argument is that the Chantry is simply a front for the Orlesian empire. However, this is negated by the fact that the Chantry hasn'tsaid a word about the Neverrans annexing the blasted lands. The people of which consdier themselves orlesian.

[errant_knight]

If the Chantry openly took sides in wars other than when they called an exalted march, they wouldn't be able to exist in every country as they do.

[dragonflight288]

Bleachrude wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

@ ShadowLord

Adding on to number 3 of your list. Not only did the Chantry not say anything about Orlais occupying Ferelden and stay silent while the Orlesians abused the Fereldens horribly, they actively supported them in the war between them, to the point of lending the Orlesians as many mages from the Circle as the Orlesians felt they needed, and denied Fereldens any mages at all.

They only started changing their tune when it became obvious that Ferelden has started winning the war, and they realized their support of Orlais could, and in fact nearly did, get them kicked out of Ferelden.

Bad example.

The Nevarrans overtook the Blasted Lands but from reading the books, the blasted lands have been orlesian in all but name since they were called the blasted lands. 

The Chantry hasn't said peep about Neverra being an aggressor,....

I never mentioned Nevarra. I was talking about Ferelden.

I know that, but I believe the argument is that the Chantry is simply a front for the Orlesian empire. However, this is negated by the fact that the Chantry hasn'tsaid a word about the Neverrans annexing the blasted lands. The people of which consdier themselves orlesian.

The Chantry had been a front for the Orlesian empire at one point. In the beginning, with its inception. It's evolved beyond that, and this is proven by Orlais getting kicked out of Ferelden, Nevarra and the Free Marches, yet the Chantry remains.

But the Chantry still allies with Orlais in every single major conflict, or at leas every major conflict to date, often granting a great deal of resources, whether from templars or mages while actively denying those resources to the countries opposing Orlais, let alone condemning those countries spirituality/blessings (as in the case of Ferelden in Stolen Throne) until it becomes obvious Orlais is losing.

[dragonflight288]

errant_knight wrote...

If the Chantry openly took sides in wars other than when they called an exalted march, they wouldn't be able to exist in every country as they do.

Out of curiosity, have you read The Stolen Throne?

[Silfren]

errant_knight wrote...
..
If the Chantry openly took sides in wars other than when they called an exalted march, they wouldn't be able to exist in every country as they do.

That's exactly what they did in the conflict between Orlais and Ferelden.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
..
If the Chantry openly took sides in wars other than when they called an exalted march, they wouldn't be able to exist in every country as they do.

That's exactly what they did in the conflict between Orlais and Ferelden.

And it is exactly what the Chantry didn't do in Nevarra. It would seem that the Chantry has no interrest in conflicts taking place in countries where they are already firmly established. After all, Ferelden had only recently accepted the Chantry, and it was still following a few "heathen" traditions. Of course the Chantry would have a vested interrest in having Orlais win that conflcit. Compared to the Nevarran conflcit, the Chantry had no interrest in catering to either side here, since both were already stout Andrastians.

[MisterJB]

The World of Thedas, page 106:
"Divine Amara III is elected. The famously fanatical leader is said to enjoy bonfire fueled by burning maleficar. Her reign does not last long."

Andrastians aren't below removing their Divine if she is a dangerous fanatical.

Modifié par MisterJB, 30 octobre 2013 - 03:53 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

MisterJB wrote...

The World of Thedas, page 106:
"Divine Amara III is elected. The famously fanatical leader is said to enjoy bonfire fueled by burning maleficar. He reign does not last long."

Andrastians aren't below removing their Divine if she is a dangerous fanatical.

Shhhhhhh! You are making the Chantry sound reasonable!

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

The World of Thedas, page 106:
"Divine Amara III is elected. The famously fanatical leader is said to enjoy bonfire fueled by burning maleficar. He reign does not last long."

Andrastians aren't below removing their Divine if she is a dangerous fanatical.

Or she got an actual maleficar by accident once, who exploded her in response.

[Br3admax]

Don't worry, I've brought more straws.

[Steelcan]

Xil really won't give them an inch....

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xil really won't give them an inch....

Oh, no, I'm perfectly willing to give more. I commend them for allowing the Circle's secession, for instance. That's just a silly example, because it doesn't explain why her reign didn't last long.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xil really won't give them an inch....

Oh, no, I'm perfectly willing to give more. I commend them for allowing the Circle's secession, for instance. That's just a silly example, because it doesn't explain why her reign didn't last long.

The implication is rather clear

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xil really won't give them an inch....

Oh, no, I'm perfectly willing to give more. I commend them for allowing the Circle's secession, for instance. That's just a silly example, because it doesn't explain why her reign didn't last long.

The implication is rather clear

Perhaps, perhaps not. Down to interpretation in the end.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xil really won't give them an inch....

Oh, no, I'm perfectly willing to give more. I commend them for allowing the Circle's secession, for instance. That's just a silly example, because it doesn't explain why her reign didn't last long.

The implication is rather clear

Perhaps, perhaps not. Down to interpretation in the end.

There is a clear interpretation that was meant to be gathered from that, and you know it.

[leaguer of one]

MisterJB wrote...

The World of Thedas, page 106:
"Divine Amara III is elected. The famously fanatical leader is said to enjoy bonfire fueled by burning maleficar. Her reign does not last long."

Andrastians aren't below removing their Divine if she is a dangerous fanatical.

I think you miss under stand, currupt does not mean crazy. The divine is the face of the chantry, they are not going to let a crazy woman be the face of it. Them suddenly removing her does not mean they are not currupt, it mean they know how to do damage control.