Being a man of great faith I tend to gravitate to have my characters gravitate towards those faiths that fall near the worship of our God.
So I'm Pro-Chantry Although If I can Choose I'll go for the Black Divine over the White Divine. Tevinter will get better over the ages, The Qun will only destroy all that is good and right in Thedas, So not a Qunari lover either.
Well, when zatharian the religious leader of the dalish practices magic using a spirit, that is just as hypocritical as anything you can name the dwarves or chantry or qunari.
Again its just an example. The dalish aren't saints, they are just ...lol..."people".
Fair enough: my argument was that the Chantry is institutionally hypocritical (the same with the Qun and the dwarves). So you can people like Elthina unwittingly supporting Alrik not because Elthina is hypocritical, but because Elthina is part of an institution that is super crazy and it can trip over its own ideals. Because Dalish culture is so small you can't really run into the problem on the same scale. Add that to the fact that the Dalish actually know nothing about their own culture (who knows, maybe Arlathan actually secretly means "Man, it's super fun to summon demons here".) It's semantics really more than anything.
I agree that Zathrian is awful, but he did do something right: Lanaya seems super chill, I don't know she was produced from an apprenticeship with him.
The thing with Zathrian is that he willingly went against Dalish belief. I remember reading that elves who consort with the forgotten ones are far worse than any human lord.
The forgotten ones spread disease and pestilence, etc. Zathrian -using blood magic- created the werewolf curse, which can quickly infect and spread.
I think there's really no way to have a fair comparison of the Chantry and other religions, like the Dalish, when the Chantry is the party in control. We know what the Chantry has done to the Dalish, for example, and most people are going to think it's wrong, because persecution and the denial of religious freedom is against the majority's cultural values. Would the Dalish do the same, if they suddenly were given power? If they did, would it be based on a sense of bitterness the Chantry originally inspired? We can't ever really have an opinion on the opposition that isn't colored by seeing what the Chantry has done with their power.
I view them about the same as I view real-world religions.
Which is to say they run the gamut from "nonsensical but harmless", all the way to "morally bankrupt fascists".
I think it's impossible for any dogmatic religions based on the worship of a god or gods to exist without hypocrisy.
Why?
Hypocrisy is such an overused word and one that ultimatively means little. You will find elements that may or may not be hypocritical everywhere.
Why?
Hypocrisy is such an overused word and one that ultimatively means little. You will find elements that may or may not be hypocritical everywhere.
It's pretty easy to not be a hypocrite, if one possesses even a shred of self-awareness.
That depends on people agreeing that something is hypocritical to begin with.
Hypocrisy has a pretty clear-cut definition, man. If there's some dispute over whether or not an action is hypocritical, it's because one party doesn't know what hypocrisy actually entails.
Nothing is clear-cut. We're discussing humanity here man.
Hypocrisy has a pretty clear-cut definition, man. If there's some dispute over whether or not an action is hypocritical, it's because one party doesn't know what hypocrisy actually entails.
Not really- much of hypocrisy is a matter of perception about what standard is being enforced. Since people's standards and rationals are frequently vague and unclear, even to themselves, and are not universally prioritized over other rules, it can be exceedingly difficult to tell if someone is being hypocritical or just has nuanced priorities.
Take, for example, the commandment of 'thou shall not kill.' For many, this is literally just that: do not kill. Anything. Under any condition. Do not commit suicide, do not kill in passion, do not kill in self-defense, do not even eat meat of an animal that is killed for it.
Other people, however, understand it in terms of 'thou shall not commit murder.' Which is, allegedly, how it originally was intended. That is considerably different- especially since what we consider 'murder' is understood and defined differently in different contexts. Suicide is not murder. Self-defense is not murder. Killing in war is frequently distinguished from murder. Vegetarianism doesn't even come into it.
This isn't even getting into concepts such as indirect responsibility and intervening mediums and actors. If I give an order, but someone else carries it out and kills someone, did I kill? If I don't stop and help someone in mortal distress, am I responsible for killing them?
And that's with a single principle at play. If you have multiple principles competing, only one can come out on top.
Let's take the topic of love. Harmless, right? Say you have a principle that you should be honest about your feelings for someone: if you love someone, let them know. Better to have admitted and been denied than regret never having said at all, right?
But... what if you also have a principle that Thou Shall Not Covet, and that loved one is already in a relationship? What would answer be, especially if it was a happy relationship? Would your answer change if it was clearly an unhappy relationship?
Regardless, you're trapped. Confessing can be considered a violation of coveting, but not confessing will violate the principle of honesty. You must be a hypocrite either way, right?
Well, not really- the idea that both principles are equal is an underlying but false assumption. You can simply hold one as higher than the other, and let that one be dominant in cases where they come into conflict. Then you have an organizing principle of conflict resolution between priorities: pursue A, pursue B, but A > B when the two conflict. Following that principle of moral priorities would not be hypocritical... from the perspective of someone who knows and believes that's what is being done.
Someone else could simply see it as hypocrisy and an attempt to rationalize it away. Or the reverse: a person could try and claim a unifying moral theory when they really don't follow it. Sort of like retroactively throwing a moral justification to an action that was conducted on other grounds: say I stopped a thief by tripping him, but really was just having a bad day and spitefully stuck my leg out at the first running person I saw.
Moral integrity is highly subjective: not just to the person employing it, but to the observers as well. It is always a case in which all parties have limited perspective. This is another part of what makes hypocrisy very hard to identify: what seems hypocritical to an outsider may not be to the person who understands the priorities at play.
Take, for example, the commandment of 'thou shall not kill.' For many, this is literally just that: do not kill. Anything. Under any condition. Do not commit suicide, do not kill in passion, do not kill in self-defense, do not even eat meat of an animal that is killed for it.
The ten commandments always did feel a little incomplete, like it needed conditions or something.
"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain, unless:
a: thou has stubbed thy toe against the dresser at night
b: receiveth unto thee an ungodly bill on account of children's telephone habits"
I'm a religious person in real life, but I don't jump into believing things blindly either.
I'm intrigued by the Qun as it's more of a philosophy and less a religion. I like that it doesn't discriminate between races. Tallis and the elves who joined the Arishok in Act 2 make it very clear that elves are far more equal under the Qun than they are in any Andrastian nation. Sten and Zevran's dialogues make it clear that Zevran is surprised that some elves are given positions of authority over humans, although he didn't seem to get the notion that the individual, not the race, is judged and assigned a role based upon their aptitudes. Unless they're a mage then they simply are Sarabaas.
However, I do not like that it's so oppressive and it doesn't allow any flexibility in personal desires or ambitions, to the point that even your 'partners' for children are chosen for you, and the children aren't raised by their parents.
The Chantry, both Imperial and White, have a fascinating history, and at first glance, seems to reflect the Catholic Church in real life. However, I feel it does not, and the only real similarity between it and the Catholic Church is that it's international, and wars were fought to spread the religion to the 'heathens' as it were. If you simply read the Chant of Light and take it for what it is, it is very poetic, and has many similar teachings to what I hear in church.
However, there are also some very disturbing facets of the Chantry. For one thing, I simply cannot believe they are the be-all and end-all of all things related to the Maker and the Fade. Heck, the Chantry didn't start to rise until over a century after Andraste died in the first place, preaching a return to worshiping the Maker. And Drakon I picked one of many Andrastian cults. Whose to say that their interpretation of the Chant is correct or incorrect, and they simply had the largest army backing them? Also, they make it very clear that they must spread the chant to all corners of the world before the Maker will return, but they have no problem removing Canticles from the Chant when they become politically inconvenient, like the Canticle of Shartan being removed after the war with the Dales, the Chantry ordering all elves to live in alienages and convert. Or the Canticle of Maferath. And all the other Dissonent Verses.
Also is the Chantry's long history of getting involved with politics that favor Orlais. Whether it's supporting them like in the Ferelden war in The Stolen Throne, or in Thedas Calendar codex, nearly named an age to celebrate Orlesian dominance, then swiftly named it the Dragon Age, rumored to be in favor of Orlais in the battle of River Dane. Or whenever Orlais seems to be in trouble, it's the Chantry that has to bail them out, like calling an Exalted March when Orlais was about to lose. Now I'm not going to get into that debate, but the fact of the matter is that if they stayed out of it, we don't know what would've happened but I simply don't see the elves as interested in enslaving humans at all when they're so focused on isolationism from humans so they can regain their fabled immortality. That's all I'm going to say about that. (Had a nice debate about in a PM conversation not that long ago.)
As for the elves with their beliefs in the Beyond, the creators and so on. I find it quite interesting. They also seem to possess a great deal of knowledge about spirits and demons that those who follow the Chantry either disregard or don't believe, as part of their religious differences. For example, Anders and Chantry-controlled Circles believe in spirits and demons, that spirits were the Maker's first children and he abandoned them to create the world of man, only to abandon them too. They believe in benevolent spirits and malicious demons. The Dalish however, regard ALL spirits as dangerous, and WoT makes it clear that the Dalish do not engage in any form of magic that calls upon spirits for that reason. (I guess that rules out the entire school of spirit for them)
But they are just as capable of identifying demons as a trained mage from the Circle. I know some Merrill-haters don't want to hear this, but Merrill trumps Anders in conversations when it comes to identifying spirits. She was able to tell just by examining Kerran's blood that he wasn't possessed, can give very sound advice on how to resist demons ("A Sloth Demon! Think active thoughts, like running, jumping!") I don't know if the bit with Kerran is because she's a blood mage or simply because she's knowledgeable on spirits, but Anders simply attacks Kerran and thinks that since Kerran didn't fight back he isn't possessed. A smart demon (Pride or Desire) would be able to play that down and isn't reliable as a source unless you're dealing spirits of Rage or possibly Hunger. A blood test seems more reliable.
Overall, I can't see anything wrong with their religion at all. But the attitude of the Dalish to non-dalish does get on my nerves. I can't say I care for the superiority complex or how they can't seem to accept that sometimes non-dalish can do what their best hunters cannot. (Master Ilen getting offended at Hawke offering to clear an area with ironbark of darkspawn comes to mind.)
And finally the dwarves.
I like that they're focused on living up to their ancestors and revering them, but following tradition is killing them off, and they know it but are too stubborn to make the changes to improve their chances of not going extinct, like arming casteless or allowing people to move beyond their current caste (unless they become a paragon) because it would go against tradition.
I do not like quite a few of them on the basis that they are violent expansionists that convert by the sword. Like our own history, religion and ultimate authority do not mix well.
The religions in Thedas that keep to themselves (the dales for instance) and do not seek to take over the world are ok in my book.
There is absolutely no reason to think Merrill is better at identifying spirits than Anders. Anders didn't just punch him, he attacked him with magic. I'd trust a guy who is fused with a spirit to know better than her what it takes to bring them out. Since Kerran wasn't possessed, we don't have examples of either of them positively identifying a hidden demon. And since we also don't have examples of pride demons doing either, there's about as much chance a smart or powerful demon could fool a blood test as it could Anders' test.
And if you want to compare their respective performances in the Fade in Feynriel's quest, Anders wins.
IRL, I love all of the religions in Thedas. I think they're all very interesting, and their reflections to real world religions are pretty cool, especially the Chantry's blend of the Iceni faith and Christianity (at least that's what I've gathered from it). In game, especially in Inquisition, a game presumably all about questions and answers, I like my characters to be able to express doubt. Certainty is something I've found to be very rare and fleeting and I'd like to reflect that in my characters.
There is absolutely no reason to think Merrill is better at identifying spirits than Anders. Anders didn't just punch him, he attacked him with magic. I'd trust a guy who is fused with a spirit to know better than her what it takes to bring them out. Since Kerran wasn't possessed, we don't have examples of either of them positively identifying a hidden demon. And since we also don't have examples of pride demons doing either, there's about as much chance a smart or powerful demon could fool a blood test as it could Anders' test.
And if you want to compare their respective performances in the Fade in Feynriel's quest, Anders wins.
Anders doesn't win, he isn't even subconsiously present.
It's more accurate to say that Justice wins.
And when I say trumps, I mean that if she's in the party, regardless if Anders is or not, she's the one who'll give the dialogue.
EDIT: Meant to say that Anders isn't even conscious during the whole Fade sequence, so he doesn't win.
Modifié par dragonflight288, 29 mars 2014 - 01:44 .
Take, for example, the commandment of 'thou shall not kill.' For many, this is literally just that: do not kill. Anything. Under any condition. Do not commit suicide, do not kill in passion, do not kill in self-defense, do not even eat meat of an animal that is killed for it.
Other people, however, understand it in terms of 'thou shall not commit murder.' Which is, allegedly, how it originally was intended. That is considerably different- especially since what we consider 'murder' is understood and defined differently in different contexts. Suicide is not murder. Self-defense is not murder. Killing in war is frequently distinguished from murder. Vegetarianism doesn't even come into it.
The Hebrew word in the original text, before any translations, is "murder" not "kill". The Mosaic Law also distinguished between the two situations. Jewish tradition is quite clear that if you see someone about to kill someone else or you, and the only way to stop them from doing so is to kill that person, then you not only have a right but a duty to save their life or yours, even if it means ending theirs. Murder is to take someone's innocent life, not in self defense or in defense of others, with premeditation. And, of course, as is obvious from reading much of the "OT," killing in war is not only sanctioned but against certain groups, like the Canaanites, encouraged. (This is, presumably, in defense of the nation itself.)
After all, Moses himself kills an Egyptian taskmaster.
Retour en haut