29 réponses à ce sujet

[Gervaise]

I was wondering if DAI will allow us to challenge the Chantry's version not only of events surrounding Andraste but also their version of her teaching.  I've been replaying Awakening and this reminded me about the Canticle of Maferath which, like the Canticles relating to Shartan, are not acknowledged by the Chantry (have been removed from the Chant).   Now Shartan I can understand because clearly that was politically motivated at the time of the Dalish War, although I would still like the opportunity to challenge their removal, but given what is happening in that area, may be we will.  

 

However, I find the removal of the Canticle of Maferath rather harder to understand.   In it Maferath feels remorse at what he has done and promises to bring the people in the "lands of his fathers" to the worship of the Maker.   Seeing as this would seem to include Ferelden and possibly Orlais, you'd think it would suit the Chantry to demonstrate the basis of their authority, considering Drakon probably was descended from the barbarian tribes himself.   Of course it does suggest his betrayal had the Maker's blessing, which might be seen as odd if he then abandoned humanity as a result.   Or is it that the Chantry don't like the idea of forgiveness for past misdeeds.   I know it is said that the current Divine is criticised for her lenient attitude towards sinners.    So it would be helpful to have some further insight on this.

 

On the whole my characters have no problem with the teaching of Andraste.   It is the interpretation that the Chantry have put on that teaching that they object to.   Leaving aside the mage issue, there is also the attitude of the Chevaliers and their "divine right to rule" which seems to allow them freedom to abuse their power however they wish and which is in direct contradiction to the teachings contained in the Chant of Light.

 

So I would welcome the opportunity to reform the Andrastian faith and diminish the Chantry's control over it.   Anyone else feel the same?

[The Ascendant]

Interesting notion. Religious reformation would be interesting, however with the current Mage-Templar War depriving the Chantry of both it's military arm and control over magi, the issue of philosophical differences will seem somewhat small in comparison to what else is occurring in the contemporary world. I have no doubt that the Chantry and the Divine will play a role in Inquisition, but how large?  

In regards to the Dissonant Verses, which essentially is anything that makes Elves or even Men look good in the eyes of the Maker being removed, I find not only racist but sexist as well. It some what brings up the whole Judas/Jesus question. He stated that he knew someone would betray him, but if he wasn't betrayed he wouldn't have died and therefore been resurrected. The same could apply to Andraste a Maferath. Did she know he would betray her? What would have happened if he didn't? Andraste's martyrdom is the founding point of the Chantry, if she wasn't sacrificed, would the Chantry evolved as it did?

P.S. Every bro knows that the wife of another bro is off limits. Not cool Maker. Not cool.

[EmissaryofLies]

Much like in real life: If this so called "benevolent" religious following would actually adhere to its own teachings and stop cherrypicking what it wants to support, things would be better.

 

I'd like to reform much more than their faith. They should lose any authority whatsoever over mages, for starters. And no. That is not an invitation for a return to old form. That's what I want, end of story. 

 

I wouldn't object to a better representation of its 'true interpretation', that is for sure. 

[Mistic]

So I would welcome the opportunity to reform the Andrastian faith and diminish the Chantry's control over it.   Anyone else feel the same?

 

I don't really think we'll have that opportunity. The best I can imagine is a new Circle system and maybe helping a new Divine to rise up if the current one dies. And that's being generous.

 

However, I think we'll have the opportunity to know more about the Chantry's origin, if only because any player would be looking forward  to knowing more about the Inquisition.

 

The original Inquisition predated the Chantry by 100 years, more or less, and disbanded with the Nevarran Accord in 1:20. That's 20 years after the Chantry was created. At the same time, Emperor Drakon, founder of Orlais and the man who practically set the Chantry into motion, was battling in the Second Blight. That past is crucial to know more about the Inquisition, and it's related to the first Andrastians (the Chantry was only the more succesful Andrastian school at that time), so I expect interesting lore at least.

[azarhal]

I'm puzzled how some people seems to think that the game will allow the players to reform every entities meet in the game be it the Chantry, Orlais, Elves,  Ferelden, Templars or the Circles, etc. 

 

I'm really wondering where the idea steam from actually.

[Wolfen09]

well, im wondering who gives us the authority to be the inquisitor?  i mean my initial thought was the chantry which is still technically a neutral party, but orlais also came to mind but that would mean you would be on one side already....  you can't just declare im the inquisitor everyone has to listen to me!  it never works, trust me.... especially in the bar

[wcholcombe]

I was wondering if DAI will allow us to challenge the Chantry's version not only of events surrounding Andraste but also their version of her teaching. I've been replaying Awakening and this reminded me about the Canticle of Maferath which, like the Canticles relating to Shartan, are not acknowledged by the Chantry (have been removed from the Chant). Now Shartan I can understand because clearly that was politically motivated at the time of the Dalish War, although I would still like the opportunity to challenge their removal, but given what is happening in that area, may be we will.

However, I find the removal of the Canticle of Maferath rather harder to understand. In it Maferath feels remorse at what he has done and promises to bring the people in the "lands of his fathers" to the worship of the Maker. Seeing as this would seem to include Ferelden and possibly Orlais, you'd think it would suit the Chantry to demonstrate the basis of their authority, considering Drakon probably was descended from the barbarian tribes himself. Of course it does suggest his betrayal had the Maker's blessing, which might be seen as odd if he then abandoned humanity as a result. Or is it that the Chantry don't like the idea of forgiveness for past misdeeds. I know it is said that the current Divine is criticised for her lenient attitude towards sinners. So it would be helpful to have some further insight on this.

On the whole my characters have no problem with the teaching of Andraste. It is the interpretation that the Chantry have put on that teaching that they object to. Leaving aside the mage issue, there is also the attitude of the Chevaliers and their "divine right to rule" which seems to allow them freedom to abuse their power however they wish and which is in direct contradiction to the teachings contained in the Chant of Light.

So I would welcome the opportunity to reform the Andrastian faith and diminish the Chantry's control over it. Anyone else feel the same?

The chevaliers has nothing to do with the chantry. It is Orlesian law not Chantry. The chantry has nothing to do with the academie.

[Mistic]

I'm puzzled how some people seems to think that the game will allow the players to reform every entities meet in the game be it the Chantry, Orlais, Elves,  Ferelden, Templars or the Circles, etc. 

 

I'm really wondering where the idea steam from actually.

 

Wishful thinking mostly, I assume. Still, those promotional images with the Inquisitor holding a Templar ring, a Seeker ring, a Mage ring and one ring to rule them all an unidentified ring may give ideas to some about Circles or Mages.

 

The chevaliers has nothing to do with the chantry. It is Orlesian law not Chantry. The chantry has nothing to do with the academie.

 

True. Still, the Chantry tends to favour Orlais a lot (for obvious reasons). Last time was Kirkwall 9:21.

[azarhal]

Wishful thinking mostly, I assume. Still, those promotional images with the Inquisitor holding a Templar ring, a Seeker ring, a Mage ring and one ring to rule them all an unidentified ring may give ideas to some about Circles or Mages.

 

As far as I remember, developers have said that wasn't the Inquisitor... Although, I can't remember if that was on the forums or twitter.

[Mistic]

As far as I remember, developers have said that wasn't the Inquisitor... Although, I can't remember if that was on the forums or twitter.

 

Is that true? Even the one holding the Inquisitor's helmet? I mean, the Inquisition's symbol is a combination of the Templars' and the Seekers', so it made sense. But if you're right, that cloaked figure could be the villain. Even more interesting. Still, those rings point out to someone wanting to take control of or at least be above the aforementioned groups.

[fighterchick]

 

So I would welcome the opportunity to reform the Andrastian faith and diminish the Chantry's control over it.   Anyone else feel the same?

 

Personally, I wouldn't want that because it feels like it would give the Inquisitor too much power.  As it is, our pc has been and is going to be ridiculously overpowered in comparison to everyone else and I understand that it has to be that way in a video game.  But I don't want to have the power to influence every single facet of the game including all the major players.  

 

I would love to see more of the lore on the religion in the game, though.  Even if we just get a codex on some of the dissonant verses, that would be awesome.  

[azarhal]

Is that true? Even the one holding the Inquisitor's helmet? I mean, the Inquisition's symbol is a combination of the Templars' and the Seekers', so it made sense. But if you're right, that cloaked figure could be the villain. Even more interesting. Still, those rings point out to someone wanting to take control of or at least be above the aforementioned groups.

 

They said the character did not represent anyone, the images means "take that helmet/sword and be the Inquisitor" or something like that. Trying to find the source though is like trying to find a needles in a haystack.

 

I personally always though it was the "bad buy" that was giving these thing to the future Inquisitor, but that's because I believe that the PC get appointed as head of the Inquisition to make it flop, not succeed. I have weird theories something...

 

 

[dragonflight288]

At the very least, I would love to see those ancient scrolls we pick up in the temple at Haven in Origins as translated by Petrine make an appearance. She says that it may be the last record of Maferath himself. It would be fascinating to have that link, and maybe even a direct first-person knowledge on what kind of person Andraste was without the religious rhetoric and spin by the Chantry. 

 

But yeah, even if the Inquisition can't reform the Chantry directly, I would like to have the opportunity to ask the Divine, or a group of Grand Clerics about the Dissonent Verses, why they were removed, and how can they expect the Maker will return if they get the Chant to all four corners of the world if they keep editing the chant. 

[ElitePinecone]

I think revelations about Chantry history and the so-called dissonant verses are very likely. Almost certain.

 

Before they decided on "Inquisition", DA3 had a number of potential subtitles - Exarch [the title of a Byzantine provincial governor], "The Breach", Inquisitor, Inquisition, and - most interestingly - Apocrypha. 

 

Apocrypha in the religious sense can refer to primary-source texts which were excluded from later "canonical" collections. 

 

More specifically, it often refers to heretical Christian books or documents that were denied legitimacy due to their content, some of which contradicted later (and now, more well-known) parts of the Christian canon. The process by which the early church decided upon what some consider a divinely-inspired Bible was, in fact, extraordinarily messy and disputed. 

 

We know the Chant of Light has heretical verses which were excised in the early stages of Chantry expansion, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those lost, or buried, interpretations of events paint Chantry doctrine in a very different light. I doubt they considered the subtitle Apocrypha for no reason. If I had to guess, there were certain parts of the Chant which the early leaders fought very hard to keep hidden.

 

(I've never really looked into the lore of Chantry history, though, so I have no idea what those could be.)

[azarhal]

(I've never really looked into the lore of Chantry history, though, so I have no idea what those could be.)

 

Everything the early leadership didn't like. Which means anything that talk positively of magic, the "old gods" or other races would be my bet.

 

The first thing the 1st Divine did was ban the practice magic so...

[Gervaise]

I agree that it wouldn't be possible to alter the entire Chantry but definitely be able to bring up the versus they have conveniently omitted.   I would also like to know what was in the ancient texts we brought back from Haven, although it might be something along the lines of what we found on the statues.   Still it would be nice to know.

 

I want to know about Shartan as well and what exactly was his attitude to the Maker and the Chant because there were definite hints in the codex that went with the sword in DA2, and in the words of the shade in the Shrine, that he didn't agree with everything she preached but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".   He was meant to have died defending her and if Mafareth was instantly filled with remorse about what he had done, that we account for why he kept his word to the elves.

 

So far as the Chevaliers are concerned, I am well aware they are following Orlais law, but since Orlais was established at the same time as the Chantry, you'd think the latter could have exercised some influence over their laws, particularly as their justification for their behaviour is that they have a "divine right" to rule.  This suggests that the Chantry was perfectly willing to go along with it, if nothing else for political expediency.  They need to keep in with the nobles for when they want to launch Exalted Marches.  It is just another example of how much double standards operate with the Chantry.   Mages have to be kept locked up for the sake of the general population, yet Chevaliers can rape, beat and murder with impunity, provided their victims are not among the nobility.  

 

Knowing this about the Chevaliers from Origins made me somewhat less surprised as to what the Templars get away with behind closed doors.   Once again they justify their control of mages with "divine mandate" and it would seem that since a lot of noble houses dump their cast off, wayward sons and daughters on the Chantry, it is hardly surprising that many in Templar ranks have a similar outlook to the Chevaliers, particularly as the majority of the mages they are controlling come from among the peasantry.   Mages from noble families get preferential treatment, particularly as they move up the hierarchy of the Circles.   Notice how in DA2 Bethany could have visits from her family and that Du Lancet father was able to appeal for clemency for his son and still keeps in touch with him.   Compare that with Ella being dragged off to the Circle without even being able to say goodbye and Anders also dragged away, never to see his mother again, with only a pillow to remember her by.   It also seemed that those being made tranquil tended to be from the peasant ranks - no doubt the nobility would raise questions if their offspring were forcibly made tranquil.   And contrast the heavy handed approach towards families in Lowtown when the Templars are searching for apostates, compared with the treatment of the Du Lancets.      To me this is why the mage situation isn't about keeping the populace safe, but keeping powerful people from changing the status quo and protecting the nobility.      

 

I would love to discover more records about what really went on during Andraste's time and immediately after, before the history was altered by the Orlesian backed Chantry, because I'm hoping it would prove interesting reading, even if you can't act on it.

[azarhal]

but since Orlais was established at the same time as the Chantry,

 

It wasn't, not really. The Grand Game, all the different titles and most of the culture was created 8 generations before Drakon was crowned Emperor. There is something called the Grand Unification that happened before Drakon was born as well.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

That's true, but the modern form of the Orlesian nation state was founded by Drakon.

 

The thing about the Dissonenat verses though is that I don't think that all of them were always part of the Chant or are non-canon for the same reason. The Canticle of Shartan was canon at once point, but removed later. The Canticle of Maferath I think was rejected before it the official Chant of Light was complied I had thought. Presumably the reason being that it paints the death of Andraste as part of the Maker's plan rather than a a result of mankind rejecting him again. Condemnation of Maferath is also part of the reason that the White chantry does not let men rise to higher ranks in the clergy.

 

To me it's a sign that there are many ways to be an Andrastian, but the Chantry way tends to dominate.

[dragonflight288]

The Chantry was never the sole interpretation of the Chant. It was chosen by Drakon out of many Andrastian Cults. The one in Haven was an Andrastian Cult that predates the chantry, had revered fathers and no problem with mages, but its teachings were subverted over the centuries and ended up a Dragon Cult. 

 

Personally, I would love to go to Val Reyeaux and ask all the Grand Clerics and the Divine how they expect to bring back the Maker by spreading the Chant if they edit the Chant as proven by the Dissonenet Verses. If the Canticle of Shartan was part of the canon until after the fall of the Dales, it is likely that other verses were removed for political reasons as well. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Personally, since the Canticle of Shartan was the only one that was mentioned as being part of the Chant at first and then removed I'm assuming it's the only one. The other dissonant verses may never have been canon.

 

The dragon cult of Haven is not exactly a look at the authentic teachings of Andraste anymore, only the Guardian is. Although, World of Thedas explains the reason that only female priests are allowed is because in the White Chantry they are all judged for Maferath's betrayal and women are looked at as the purer sex, so I imagine  that was something they added to their theology after Andraste.

[ElitePinecone]

One could assume that the ban on male priests results from a particular interpretation of the Chant, rather than being a direct instruction. After all, the Tevinter Chantry manages to argue for male clergy and doesn't seem to contradict any golden rules, their opinion of magic aside.

(The invocation of the sin of Maferath to explain female clergy is very similar to the way "the sin of Eve" was used in the real life mediaeval Church, but from what I understand the modern restriction on female priests is based on other textual sources too.)

That said, I imagine any new revelations about Maferath would have significant implications for Chantry dogma.

[Gervaise]

We don't know enough about the Haven chantry to say whether it was an authentic throwback or not but one of the companions (was it Leliana or Alistair?) did suggest it might be, leading one to assume that the prohibition on male priests was instituted at the time of the formation of the Orlesian Chantry and may have formed the dogma of that particular cult, but could not be directly inferred from the Chant itself.     After all, Maferath may have been a betrayer but the forerunner to the Guardian was not (can't remember his name) and the Guardian itself is male.  

 

The removal of Shartan from the Chant was shameful.   Apparently the Divine made a thorough job of it, having all the images of elves removed from anything associated with Andraste and with the few images that survived showing Shartan as one of her followers, insisting that his ears were altered to make him look human (or at least only half elf).   Of course this not only reflected the conquest of the Dales but also the subsequent treatment of the elves.   Essentially the prejudice against them and refusal to allow them to improve their lot is Chantry mandated.   Everyone makes such a fuss about mages but in a way the city elves are little better off.   Okay they can keep their families together but their conditions for the most part are appalling.   I even role played that my city elf mage in Origins (she definitely says she came from the alienage) was actually quite glad to be in the Circle because on the while she was treated better than she would have been in the world at large, even if she had not been a mage.   I can also see why some might feel that aligning with the Qun would be an improvement, though naturally I feel they are wrong.

 

So, given what they did with Shartan, who is to say that they didn't remove something else that was politically expedient, for example that Andraste was actually a mage?   That partially burnt copy of a book you give to Wynne suggests as much but even if she were not, it is clear that the interpretation the Orlesian Chantry has put on her words is skewed to back up their own dogma.    In this respect I actually feel the Tevinter Chantry is probably nearer the true interpretation but it still does not justify the rule of the Magisters and in fact clearly condemns their use of blood magic as it harms the other "children" of the Maker.   Still the Chant definitely calls magic the "gift" of the Maker, so it is hard to see how the Templars can view it as a "curse" and still claim to be following the Chant.

[azarhal]

We don't know enough about the Haven chantry to say whether it was an authentic throwback or not but one of the companions (was it Leliana or Alistair?) did suggest it might be, leading one to assume that the prohibition on male priests was instituted at the time of the formation of the Orlesian Chantry and may have formed the dogma of that particular cult, but could not be directly inferred from the Chant itself.     After all, Maferath may have been a betrayer but the forerunner to the Guardian was not (can't remember his name) and the Guardian itself is male.  

 

The removal of Shartan from the Chant was shameful.   Apparently the Divine made a thorough job of it, having all the images of elves removed from anything associated with Andraste and with the few images that survived showing Shartan as one of her followers, insisting that his ears were altered to make him look human (or at least only half elf).   Of course this not only reflected the conquest of the Dales but also the subsequent treatment of the elves.   Essentially the prejudice against them and refusal to allow them to improve their lot is Chantry mandated.   Everyone makes such a fuss about mages but in a way the city elves are little better off.   Okay they can keep their families together but their conditions for the most part are appalling.   I even role played that my city elf mage in Origins (she definitely says she came from the alienage) was actually quite glad to be in the Circle because on the while she was treated better than she would have been in the world at large, even if she had not been a mage.   I can also see why some might feel that aligning with the Qun would be an improvement, though naturally I feel they are wrong.

 

So, given what they did with Shartan, who is to say that they didn't remove something else that was politically expedient, for example that Andraste was actually a mage?   That partially burnt copy of a book you give to Wynne suggests as much but even if she were not, it is clear that the interpretation the Orlesian Chantry has put on her words is skewed to back up their own dogma.    In this respect I actually feel the Tevinter Chantry is probably nearer the true interpretation but it still does not justify the rule of the Magisters and in fact clearly condemns their use of blood magic as it harms the other "children" of the Maker.   Still the Chant definitely calls magic the "gift" of the Maker, so it is hard to see how the Templars can view it as a "curse" and still claim to be following the Chant.

 

I like your post. Although, I'm not sure if the Tevinter Chantry is nearer the true interpretation, they twisted the "magic shouldn't rule men" into "magic is meant to rule men".

 

Right at the end there is really something that has been bugging me in the setting. Someone who really follow the Chant and Andraste's teaching would believe that magic is a gift not a curse. I do not remember meeting a single pious character who believed that, even Bethany in DA2 said she was cursed. The Chantry (including the Templars) have been twisting and corruption Andraste's teaching and the Chant for over 900 years by now.

 

Sometime I wish for a real re-incarnated Andraste to show up so she can see all the crap done in her holy name. I don't think that was her plan back in the days.

[Gervaise]

In Asunder it says that Cole never thought of himself as a mage.   That was a word used by priests (I assume that means priestesses since there are no priests in the Chantry)  "a watchword for those cursed by the Maker".   When Cole acknowledges that he is a mage he sees himself as cursed.   Naturally this is why a lot of mages, let alone Templars, seem themselves as cursed for something they were born with.     Now you could feel yourself cursed because of they way everyone views you for something over which you had no control, but the source of that hatred and fear is the Chantry.    Yet it flies in the face of what the chant actually says where the only foul and corrupt people, and therefore by implication are cursed, are those who misuse the gift of magic from the Maker.

 

It is this that lies behind my staring this thread.   I would like to be able to say it every time someone from the Chantry or the Templars or anyone else raises the matter that mages are cursed - no they aren't, they have been blessed by the Maker, it says so in the Chant.   Not in dissonant versus, not in verses that have been dropped for political expediency, in the actual Chant that is recited everyday in every Chantry across Thedas.   Yes, they have a duty to use that gift for the benefit of all, not just as a source of power for themselves, but it comes to them from the Maker.    And if I could find proof that Andraste herself was actually a mage, so much the better.

 

The whole thrust of the first trailer for DAI was that you can become an agent of change.    Getting people, particularly those at the top of the Chantry tree,  to acknowledge what the Chant really says (preferably in public), plus restoring the bits about Shartan that were taken out, is something I would like to do and don't feel it would be setting breaking to do so.

[Wulfram]

The Chant is inherently an artificial construction made out of a variety of traditions.  There's nothing inherently sinister about doing a bit of editing, rather than just tossing in everything that pretends to authenticity.

 

And it's not exactly surprising that you'd want to stop singing about how cool the elves are when elves have just come looting and pillaging into your home city.  It's like the British royal family deciding it wasn't going to be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha any more.