8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

I'd think of them as Spetsnaz, personally.

 

Overrated, Overfunded and  not overly effective?

 

I could see that comparison

[Grieving Natashina]

 

Where has the Chantry tried to enforce a cultural monolith on everyone, though? Or even 'take over the world'?

 

The Chantry doesn't even rule over a nation, nor has it organized an Exalted March on expansionist principles in its entire history. The doctrine of spreading the Chant has not been implemented in anywhere near as totalitarian way as is raised here- it isn't some world domination goal.

 

Even in the most negative readings of history, the only point at which the Circle has organized a religious war against another religion would be the Dalish- and that's if you ignore or don't believe in any other context in the conflict.

 

 

 It doesn't have an expansion principles? No offense Dean, but are you kidding me?  It's not only right there in the Chant, but sacking the Dales (regardless who started it; I've always suspected Qunari agents myself) and then forcing the elves into the what even David Gaider has called ghettos isn't a grab for power?  What??  Right, Orlais only did it for land, not religion?  Bullpuckey.  The Chantry not only backed it, but also removed the Shartan's Canticle out of sheer spite.  Don't tell me that religion wasn't a factor.

Did you forget that it's considered heresy to dare believe in anything outside of the Absentee Landlord and his Human Bride?  Oh and don't give me that "well it's not illegal" crap.  The Chantry and the Templars do peruse those that don't believe in the Maker.  

 

 

 

Where has the Chantry been dictating over nations, though? It doesn't determine wars, or borders, or internal politics.

The only two fields the Chantry holds authority over nations is the Chantry itself, and the Circle system and jurisdiction of mage matters. And there's nothing in particular to suggest the kingdoms feel particularly upset at the internationalization and political neutralization of mages

 

 

 

The Chantry does have a ton of political power, even if they aren't on deciding on borders and such.  You know your history; the greatest power a person or group can have in the shadows.  Nations in Thedas cannot dictate many of their own policies thanks to the Chantry.  Mage boon?  Forget it, Chantry won't allow it.  Dalish boon?  The Chantry didn't allow that either.  Rivain?  The Chantry tore the place a new one, when it has been shown that Rivain was doing just fine without the Chantry babysitting them.  So yeah, they do control a lot.  Thedas is largely living under a theocracy at this point.

 

 

 

 

But you won't find another group or religion capable of organizing and international coalition on the same scale. International unity is the key to pushing back the Qunari, and the closest international agency would be the Wardens- a very, very distant second that neither has the popular support or mandate for anything outside the Darkspawn..

 

Because surely other nations wouldn't form treaties to work together against the Qunari, right?   Nope, they have no sense of survival or cooperation without the Chantry.  

[Daerog]

Odd? Orlais has begun several wars but not any to my knowledge for religion, Territory has been their main aim.

 

Okay, you're right, I exaggerated too much there. It was more, submit and convert or wander the world, in the case of the Dales. Also, with the birth of the Orlesian Empire, Drakon fought other nations with the reason being to spread the faith, so in the beginning, Orlais expanded in the name of religion. What is annoying is that while they may have been pious at the beginning about it (maybe), they certainly act like distasteful foxes when using religion as a reason for national interest (first enchanter remille trying to give Orlais a foothold in Fereldan using Chantry institution of the Circle for example, not very pious at all).

[Dean_the_Young]

The Chantry itself may not do the "convert or die," but the Orlesians sure do.

 

I wonder. The Orlesian-Dalish conflict has always struck me as a racial/territorial conflict rather than a religious one. The Dalish might have perceived it as human religious encroachment, but I'm willing to bet a strong penny that the Orlesians viewed it as an Elven invasion- they were out to avenge the sacked cities and protect the capital, not convert the elves in the Dales. The Chantry came in after the Orlesian capital was threatened, not at the start.

 

The question about the conversion of the new city elfs is a very real concern, and would be the most significant historical issue- it may also be a misunderstood one, depending on the context of the time. Was it a Chantry-driven "convert or die, because you are a heathen"? Or was it an Orlesian-driven "convert or die, because you are a dirty elf but I will not kill an Andrastian." Coerced conversion either way- but the Chantry's role could be either instigator (religious abuse) or mitigator (blocking a worse crime of genocide).

 

Note that I am not saying either of these is true- rather that the ambiguity of the history would let either of them be true, and it would significantly challenge the notion that the Dalish conflict was a mere religious conflict to convert the Heathens and spread the Chant. (Which, as far as I know, has never been raised as a motivation in the lore.)

[Daerog]

I wonder. The Orlesian-Dalish conflict has always struck me as a racial/territorial conflict rather than a religious one. The Dalish might have perceived it as human religious encroachment, but I'm willing to bet a strong penny that the Orlesians viewed it as an Elven invasion- they were out to avenge the sacked cities and protect the capital, not convert the elves in the Dales. The Chantry came in after the Orlesian capital was threatened, not at the start.

 

The question about the conversion of the new city elfs is a very real concern, and would be the most significant historical issue- it may also be a misunderstood one, depending on the context of the time. Was it a Chantry-driven "convert or die, because you are a heathen"? Or was it an Orlesian-driven "convert or die, because you are a dirty elf but I will not kill an Andrastian." Coerced conversion either way- but the Chantry's role could be either instigator (religious abuse) or mitigator (blocking a worse crime of genocide).

 

Note that I am not saying either of these is true- rather that the ambiguity of the history would let either of them be true, and it would significantly challenge the notion that the Dalish conflict was a mere religious conflict to convert the Heathens and spread the Chant. (Which, as far as I know, has never been raised as a motivation in the lore.)

 

 

Hmmm... ya... don't know. Who really leads an Exalted March? Divine is no general, do they take a Seeker? Or does a nation who is throwing the most support in have a general that leads it? A coalition of generals and seekers/templars?

 

I'm probably wrong on the Fall of the Dales part, but so far, the only nation who has declared wars in the name of religion (not including the Chantry, which is all they can claim Exalted Marches for) has been Orlais with Drakon. Excuse for more land or really the purpose, I don't know.

 

Edit: Ugh, I'm completely failing today. I mean only for the Chant. Of course there is also the Qunari... maybe one could argue the Dalish with invading Orlais to get a buffer for defense against humans, but that is more a belief in a disease than religion... meh...

[Lulupab]

Well i suppose some of my reality based beliefs spill into this dogma but it really can't be helped, It happens to every one, people want modern day rights in Thedas, i want singular world governance.

 

Exactly, a singular world faith, Likely to be rapidly followed by a singular world governance. I say take advantage of it, turn Thedas into a proper Empire, Under Orlais or some one else i don't particularly care but it's time for unification. And my solution is different from the Qun in the fac that i will not dictate people to find their place in the system, the system will not act in that regard. Personal freedom will more or less exist as it can in a Feudalistic society.

 

United Temporarily Thedas has defeated the Qunari and the Blights, United Forever and Thedas will achieve its apex.

 

Course this likely means crushing economic sanctions and depressions for thus that resist, or massive wars engulfing the continent, but its for the greater good.

 

Lawful evil remember?

 

Uhh I think you don't know much about Lawful evil.

 

A Lawful Evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.
Like Lawful Good , Lawful Evil characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict. However, their issues with Law versus Evil are more concerned with "Will I get caught?" versus "How does this benefit me?"

Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are cited examples of Lawful Evil characters.

 

Lawful evil characters always face chaotic good characters and they almost always fail to stop them. For example Sheriff of Nottingham is lawful evil and Robin Hood is chaotic good. Following this example when the Antagonist is lawful evil the Protagonist is Chaotic good. 

[Dean_the_Young]

 

 It doesn't have an expansion principles? No offense Dean, but are you kidding me?  It's not only right there in the Chant, but sacking the Dales (regardless who started it; I've always suspected Qunari agents myself) and then forcing the elves into the what even David Gaider has called ghettos isn't a grab for power?  What??  Did you forget that it's considered heresy to dare believe in anything outside of the Absentee Landlord and his Human Bride?  Oh and don't give me that "well it's not illegal" crap.  The Chantry and the Templars do peruse those that don't believe in the Maker.  

 

What. (Not a question- the answer.)

 

The context of who started the Dalish war is incredibly relevant to whether it was an expansionist conflict. if the Orlesians were to blame for a mundane border conflict, then that's not a religious expansionist conflict. If the Dalish instigated the conflict, it isn't even a conflict of aggression. As I just posted, how it resolved is also a question.

 

I was using expansionist in the military sense: expanding the faith by conversion by the sword, finding unbelievers and killing them for the purpose of expanding your religious borders.

 

A missionary religion that expands by conversion rather than conquest is a different sort of increase. It expands, but it is not expansionist in the sense we are using.

 

The difference comes in how you address the non-believers both outside and in your own borders. Being suspicious is not enough. Having secular conflicts is not enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chantry does have a ton of political power, even if they aren't on deciding on borders and such.  You know your history; the greatest power a person or group can have in the shadows.  Nations in Thedas cannot dictate many of their own policies thanks to the Chantry.  Mage boon?  Forget it, Chantry won't allow it.  Dalish boon?  The Chantry didn't allow that either.  Rivain?  The Chantry tore the place a new one, when it has been shown that Rivain was doing just fine without the Chantry babysitting them.  So yeah, they do control a lot.  Thedas is largely living under a theocracy at this point.

 

 

 

We already agreed that the Chantry claims jurisdiction over the mages- that would be a single policy field, and yet you count the mage boon and Rivian annulment as different issues. (I at least assume you mean annulment- there's no real basis or data to support another 'tore the place a new one,' and precious little context for 'was doing just fine.')

 

So we have mages, and the Dalish, for two policy fields the Chantry has control over... and I can't remember or find any reference of the Dalish boon being rejected. I'll take your word for it if you can provide the source, but that still leaves at a grand total of...

 

Two policies.

 

 

Which, somehow, translates into 'nations in Thedas cannot dictate many of their own policies thanks to the Chantry.' Proof being... 'the greatest power a person or group can have in the shadows,' without an actual claim or support about what such policies are being attempted or obstructing.

 

Why are you double-counting and conspiracy mongering?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because surely other nations wouldn't form treaties to work together against the Qunari, right?   Nope, they have no sense of survival or cooperation without the Chantry.  

 

 

I think you misunderstand the value and role of an international institution. Institutions facilitate and organize cooperation along pre-agreed lines. They are incredibly useful for common efforts because everyone involved accepts how they work, and they provide for a common front and pre-established framework to work through. There's much less quibling about who does what because such details are already worked out ahead of time.

 

Ad hoc coalitions are significantly weaker and less effective, for the same reason that ad hoc groups of individuals are less effective and pre-established groups and instutitons. Their unity is extremely context-dependent, and thus easier to fracture and divide by the opponent's actions and immediate threat. Suspicions and power-leveraging get in the way of presenting uniform efforts, with less-defined roles frequently leading to internal power struggles.

 

 

International institutions and alliances help bring broader groups into more effective cooperation by pooling interests in advance. Ad hoc alliances are typically short-lived and far narrower in context.  A Qunari invasion of the Chantry-sphere Rivain is a concern of the entire Chantry international system. A Qunari of a no-instution Rivain is a threat to Rivain, it's immediate neighbors, and only those who feel immediately concerned.

[Master Warder Z_]

Uhh I think you don't know much about Lawful evil.

 

A Lawful Evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.
Like Lawful Good , Lawful Evil characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict. However, their issues with Law versus Evil are more concerned with "Will I get caught?" versus "How does this benefit me?"

Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are cited examples of Lawful Evil characters.

 

Lawful evil characters always face chaotic good characters and they almost always fail to stop them. For example Sheriff of Nottingham is lawful evil and Robin Hood is chaotic good. Following this example when the Antagonist is lawful evil the Protagonist is Chaotic good. 

 

I'm thinking you don't know overly much about the very morality system you're quoting but that's me.

 

I'm so happy you can quote Wikipedia and expect its definition to some how expunge my own.

 

Lawful evil allows complex moral and personal codes that fall into the realm of politics, Religion and Morality.

 

I mean even your own definition said as much, "strict codes of conduct".

 

If i'm the type to view stability, Order and peace even if all those are enforced above all things, Lawful Evil remains my morality according to D&D.

 

This was cute though some stripling trying to call me out on my perspective.

[Lulupab]

I'm thinking you don't know overly much about the very morality system you're quoting but that's me.

 

I'm so happy you can quote Wikipedia and expect its definition to some how expunge my own.

 

Lawful evil allows complex moral and personal codes that fall into the realm of politics, Religion and Morality.

 

I mean even your own definition said as much, "strict codes of conduct".

 

If i'm the type to view stability, Order and peace even if all those are enforced above all things, Lawful Evil remains my morality according to D&D.

 

This was cute though some stripling trying to call me out on my perspective.

What is uncute is the fact that you misunderstood me honey.

 

You are lawful evil, OK no argument there.

 

Uniting the world under one banner for greater good is not Lawful evil. Subjugating all nations who resist and forcing them under your banner is lawful evil even slavery is justified as long as it serves your purpose. I quoted wiki to be exact in definition. It matched what was on my mind. Religion is out of question in lawful evil. It has to be done with utter force. You must be able to define this between Lawful good and Lawful evil. What you described was lawful good.

[Master Warder Z_]

What is uncute is the fact that you misunderstood me honey.

 

You are lawful evil, OK no argument there.

 

Uniting the world under one banner for greater good is not Lawful evil. Subjugating all nations who resist and forcing them under your banner is lawful evil even slavery is justified as long as it serves your purpose. I quoted wiki to be exact in definition. It matched what was on my mind. Religion is out of question in lawful evil. It has to be done with utter force. You must be able to define this between Lawful good and Lawful evil. What you described was lawful good.

 

Really? Now i think your just backtracking, i was quite evident in my reasoning for unification, societal apex must be forced if the human condition prevents it hence the whole "Forcing subjugating the entirety of Thedas under a singular banner through both economic measures and warfare" 

 

And the Chantry serves as the centerpoint because it serves as the most convenient method of achieving said result.

 

While at the same prompting the least amount of resistance.

 

its practicality and logic.

 

Overt force is something too often linked with Lawful Evil, Subversive measures can be attributed to it as well.

[dragonflight288]

I'm going to be a stickler and point out that Dragon Age does not follow D & D morality system, and this thread isn't about that. 

[Lulupab]

Really? Now i think your just backtracking, i was quite evident in my reasoning for unification, societal apex must be forced if the human condition prevents it hence the whole "Forcing subjugating the entirety of Thedas under a singular banner through both economic measures and warfare" 

 

And the Chantry serves as the centerpoint because it serves as the most convenient method of achieving said result.

 

While at the same prompting the least amount of resistance.

 

its practicality and logic.

 

Overt force is something too often linked with Lawful Evil, Subversive measures can be attributed to it as well.

 

So you want a none magic based Tevinter Imperium then. Now that IS evil. So pardon me

[EmissaryofLies]

People have been carrying on about that for a bit now. Best to just let them get it out of their systems while helping to stay on topic.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

"United Temporarily Thedas has defeated the Qunari and the Blights, United Forever and Thedas will achieve its apex."

I thought the Qunari were just pushed back rather then defeated?

[Grieving Natashina]

What. (Not a question- the answer.)

 

The context of who started the Dalish war is incredibly relevant to whether it was an expansionist conflict. if the Orlesians were to blame for a mundane border conflict, then that's not a religious expansionist conflict. If the Dalish instigated the conflict, it isn't even a conflict of aggression. As I just posted, how it resolved is also a question.

 

I was using expansionist in the military sense: expanding the faith by conversion by the sword, finding unbelievers and killing them for the purpose of expanding your religious borders.

 

A missionary religion that expands by conversion rather than conquest is a different sort of increase. It expands, but it is not expansionist in the sense we are using.

 

 

 

So, because it doesn't fit into your technical definition, it changes the spirit of act?  What.   So, because they can hide it in terms of a "missionary" context, it isn't expansion.  Yeah, that flew right out window the second the Chantry backed the war.

 

The difference comes in how you address the non-believers both outside and in your own borders. Being suspicious is not enough. Having secular conflicts is not enough.
We already agreed that the Chantry claims jurisdiction over the mages- that would be a single policy field, and yet you count the mage boon and Rivian annulment as different issues. (I at least assume you mean annulment- there's no real basis or data to support another 'tore the place a new one,' and precious little context for 'was doing just fine.')

 

 

Why?  Seriously, why?  Why does one need a religion in order to united against a common foe?  That makes zero sense and what's more, treating everyone as a flock of sheep.  Which they are not, despite your insistence to contrary.

 

 

I do mean the annulment.  So, slaughtering/arresting every mage and Seer wasn't tearing the place a new one?  Considering that Seers were stated to have an important of their culture, the Chantry saw fit to tear them apart.  You're right about the context, somewhat.  They had mages staying with their families and mingling with society and there wasn't tons of stories where abominations were running amok. So you have about as much context as I do.

 

 In short, with only minor Chantry oversight, their society appears to have been working just fine before all that.  

So we have mages, and the Dalish, for two policy fields the Chantry has control over... and I can't remember or find any reference of the Dalish boon being rejected. I'll take your word for it if you can provide the source, but that still leaves at a grand total of...

 

Two policies.

 

Two major policies, that dictate not just mages, but their families too. You discount the mage's families that might not want their child taken away.   You don't want your child to go to the Circle and want outside help?  Too bad, the whole family could be branded as traitors to the Chantry.

 

 

 

Why are you double-counting and conspiracy mongering?

Which, somehow, translates into 'nations in Thedas cannot dictate many of their own policies thanks to the Chantry.' Proof being... 'the greatest power a person or group can have in the shadows,' without an actual claim or support about what such policies are being attempted or obstructing.

 

 

If you think that what happened to Rivain and Ferelden aren't obstructions of national policies, then I don't know what to say to you.

 

And why you are dismissing it?

 

I think you misunderstand the value and role of an international institution. Institutions facilitate and organize cooperation along pre-agreed lines. They are incredibly useful for common efforts because everyone involved accepts how they work, and they provide for a common front and pre-established framework to work through. There's much less quibling about who does what because such details are already worked out ahead of time.

 

Ad hoc coalitions are significantly weaker and less effective, for the same reason that ad hoc groups of individuals are less effective and pre-established groups and instutitons. Their unity is extremely context-dependent, and thus easier to fracture and divide by the opponent's actions and immediate threat. Suspicions and power-leveraging get in the way of presenting uniform efforts, with less-defined roles frequently leading to internal power struggles.

International institutions and alliances help bring broader groups into more effective cooperation by pooling interests in advance. Ad hoc alliances are typically short-lived and far narrower in context.  A Qunari invasion of the Chantry-sphere Rivain is a concern of the entire Chantry international system. A Qunari of a no-instution Rivain is a threat to Rivain, it's immediate neighbors, and only those who feel immediately concerned. 

 

 

I refuse to believe that nonsense.  Yes, I consider it nonsense.  Thedas does not need the Chantry politically, never has. I agree that the Chantry is invaluable to helping the sick and poor.  

 

 Why you continue to insist that a religion is needed to get folks to work together for a common cause is something I can't understand.  Sorry, you guys can spin it all you want.  I refuse to see a need for a Chantry that has that much control over Thedas.  They can form an alliance without religion.   Yes, it is possible to unite under a secular manner and not religious.  That doesn't always take a precedence to form, which is contrary to another opinion you choose to cling to.

 

 

As far as the second part...Cool, show me a source that their neighbors were worried and asked the Chantry to butt in.  Please, site a source that shows that Rivain itself was worried and it wasn't the just Chantry freaking out after Kirkwall.   Otherwise, this is as much speculation as I've been doing.

 

If folks want to think that the Chantry's political power is so damned needed in Thedas, knock yourself out.  We'll agree to disagree on that one.

 

Edit: did some editing to reflect that it isn't the Chantry itself I despise, it's their place in politics.

[Master Warder Z_]

I thought the Qunari were just pushed back rather then defeated?

 

There is a difference between defeated and destroyed, their armies were broken, their Armada splintered but they still linger in the world.

 

They were at least on a militarily level, defeated.

[Grieving Natashina]

My last note on the previous subject: If anyone needs an example of Thedas uniting under a secular banner, look no further than Inquisition.  David said that we weren't beholden to the Chantry and we're going to unite the nations.

[Divine Justinia V]

My last note on the previous subject: If anyone needs an example of Thedas uniting under a secular banner, look no further than Inquisition.  David said that we weren't beholden to the Chantry and we're going to unite the nations.

 

I look forward to doing so. Thedas could use a swift kick in the booty to get in shape and face the bigger threat at hand.

[Grieving Natashina]

I look forward to doing so. Thedas could use a swift kick in the booty to get in shape and face the bigger threat at hand.

Yes they could my friend, yes they could. 

[Dean_the_Young]

My last note on the previous subject: If anyone needs an example of Thedas uniting under a secular banner, look no further than Inquisition.  David said that we weren't beholden to the Chantry and we're going to unite the nations.

 

Not being beholden to the Chantry doesn't mean it will be a secular banner, you know. It's non-institutional, not non-religious. Nor does not being beholden to the Chantry not mean we won't work with and eventually ally with them.

 

You're reaching here, and on the basis of a scenario you don't know anything about.

[EmissaryofLies]

My last note on the previous subject: If anyone needs an example of Thedas uniting under a secular banner, look no further than Inquisition.  David said that we weren't beholden to the Chantry and we're going to unite the nations.

 

Wouldn't mind that as long as it's nothing like ME3. I didn't like being Hackett's ******. I rather enjoyed Javik's questioning of Shepard's methods; not giving into others' selfish demands and crushing them if they do not get in line.

 

Peacekeeper will be fine as long as the PC can truly run the show and get others in line however they see fit.

[Grieving Natashina]

Not being beholden to the Chantry doesn't mean it will be a secular banner, you know. It's non-institutional, not non-religious. Nor does not being beholden to the Chantry not mean we won't work with and eventually ally with them.

 

You're reaching here, and on the basis of a scenario you don't know anything about.

How so?  If it's outside of the Chantry...and if several races can lead and join it, it isn't a religious war lead by the Chantry.  Otherwise, we'd all be forced to be apart of the Chantry doing everything in the name of the Maker.  Which David Gaider and others have promised us isn't going to be the case.  

 

If that's how you wish to interpret it, as a matter of religion, then have fun with it.   To each their own.

[LobselVith8]

Not being beholden to the Chantry doesn't mean it will be a secular banner, you know. It's non-institutional, not non-religious. Nor does not being beholden to the Chantry not mean we won't work with and eventually ally with them.

You're reaching here, and on the basis of a scenario you don't know anything about.

I don't think she's reaching. The developers made it clear the Inquisition is created "in opposition" to the Chantry, and emphasized the player will shape the Inquisition and choose the alliances that are forged.

I think it's fair to think that the player isn't going to be railroaded or forced into siding with any specific faction. I'm sure siding with the Chantry will be an option, but given the developer comments to players who have expressed disdain for the Chantry of Andraste, I don't think the player will be forced to ally with them.

[Master Warder Z_]

I don't think she's reaching. The developers made it clear the Inquisition is created "in opposition" to the Chantry, and emphasized the player will shape the Inquisition and choose the alliances that are forged.

I think it's fair to think that the player isn't going to be railroaded or forced into siding with any specific faction. I'm sure siding with the Chantry will be an option, but given the developer comments to players who have expressed disdain for the Chantry of Andraste, I don't think the player will be forced to ally with them.

 

Despite you know erm...Two of the biggest supporters of the Divine Officially anointing the Inquisitor, i'd say its a pretty fair guess to assume that the Chantry will play a part in the Inquisition at least at some level, like it or no.

 

Sorry if such musings offend your Backwoods sensibilities Lob.

[Grieving Natashina]

I don't think she's reaching. The developers made it clear the Inquisition is created "in opposition" to the Chantry, and emphasized the player will shape the Inquisition and choose the alliances that are forged.

I think it's fair to think that the player isn't going to be railroaded or forced into siding with any specific faction. I'm sure siding with the Chantry will be an option, but given the developer comments to players who have expressed disdain for the Chantry of Andraste, I don't think the player will be forced to ally with them.

Yep.  You're right.  

 

I haven't heard the disdain for the Chantry though.  That's your own views talking, but the rest is correct.

 

 

Here's the source.

 

Edit: I found a second one.  It's on the video:

 

http://www.gameinfor...evelopment.aspx

 

In short, the Inquisition can be considered a secular banner (or religious, if one chooses to RP it that way.)  This isn't an endeavor backed by most of the Chantry.