384 réponses à ce sujet

[xyzmkrysvr]

Don't make me hate Blackwall.

They ARE all bad. They have to murder an innocent City Elf to even join the order. They are all at least murderers. Not even the Darkspawn can claim that 100%. And Grey Wardens provide plenty of grey(no pun intended) already.  

 

Whether you drunkenly murder a city elf because your superiors demand it in order for you to join an elite military order or whether you slaughter a family of farmers because you're upset over a lost sword is irrelevant: murder is murder. But to assume that all of the chevaliers are blood thirsty pyschopaths is a gross generalization. If you are willing to excuse Sten's crimes because he regrets it, why are you so quick to condemn every chevalier? It just makes no sense. Maybe ALL of them regret it. 

 

And have you not considered the possibility that maybe some chevaliers fake the murder of a City Elf? Or just lie about it? I haven't finished the Masked Empire, so I'm not certain of the specific details, but is this initiation rite something that they are just expected to go out and do on their own? Is there oversight? 

[wcholcombe]

I'm not under the impression that Orlais is the only thing keeping the Qunari at bay, or the only thing preventing a Qunari victory over the rest of Thedas; in fact, I recall the historical account reading that the mages were the "greatest advantage" against the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches, not Orlais. I'm willing to take the chance at letting the civil war cripple the Orlesian Empire if it means that it's not in a position to harm Ferelden and an independent Dales.

 

 

It can't be just mages, considering I believe the Qunari were steamrolling Tevinter until a Divine March was called to push them back.

 

Just a point while mages are quite effective you still need a sizeable enough army to counter the Qunari.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Whether you drunkenly murder a city elf because your superiors demand it in order for you to join an elite military order or whether you slaughter a family of farmers because you're upset over a lost sword is irrelevant: murder is murder. But to assume that all of the chevaliers are blood thirsty pyschopaths is a gross generalization. If you are willing to excuse Sten's crimes because he regrets it, why are you so quick to condemn every chevalier?

Did I ever say I excused Sten's crime? As I recall, I asked the Revered Mother to give him to my custody. He was in essence my prisoner the entire game. I only let him go in the endgame(ignoring th fact you can't do anything else) because as I said he helped stop the apocalypse.

 

And I condemn every Chevalier because so far I have yet to see a single one who doesn't deserve the condemnation.

 

 It just makes no sense. Maybe ALL of them regret it. 

Yeah, those Chevaliers who raped Loghain's mother sure seemed like they regretted what they were doing. 

 

And have you not considered the possibility that maybe some chevaliers fake the murder of a City Elf? Or just lie about it? I haven't finished the Masked Empire, so I'm not certain of the specific details, but is this initiation rite something that they are just expected to go out and do on their own? Is there oversight? 

And how would they fake it or lie about it? They would have the trainers there to make sure it is done. 

[LobselVith8]

It can't be just mages, considering I believe the Qunari were steamrolling Tevinter until a Devine March was called to push them back.

 

I was addressing that I don't think Orlais is the singular reason the Qunari were thwarted during the New Exalted Marches, and why I don't believe the Orlesian Empire is what is keeping the Qunari at bay.

 

Just a point while mages are quite effective you still need a sizeable enough army to counter the Qunari.

 

It doesn't mean that Thedas would fall without Orlais, either.

[xyzmkrysvr]

I condemn every Chevalier because so far I have yet to see a single one who doesn't deserve the condemnation.

 

*snip*

 

And how would they fake it or lie about it? They would have the trainers there to make sure it is done. 

 

Haha well it's futile to try to debate with you because you clearly know more about the history and lore of the Dragon Age universe than I do (I didn't even know that Loghain's mother was raped by chevaliers...! I guess that's mentioned in The Stolen Throne book?) And I didn't know that the chevaliers had trainers that watched them murder a city elf... I kind of thought (hoped?) that the whole initiation rite thing was just a rumor with maybe a shred of truth to it (maybe one or two isolated incidents were blown out of proportion). 

 

Oh well, I guess chevaliers aren't the knights in shining armor I had idealized in my mind... 

 

Although I still think it would be nice if we had a companion that was a bit closer to evil on the morality spectrum... just for a change.  

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Haha well it's futile to try to debate with you because you clearly know more about the history and lore of the Dragon Age universe than I do (I didn't even know that Loghain's mother was raped by chevaliers...! I guess that's mentioned in The Stolen Throne book?) And I didn't know that the chevaliers had trainers that watched them murder a city elf... I kind of thought (hoped?) that the whole initiation rite thing was just a rumor with maybe a shred of truth to it (maybe one or two isolated incidents were blown out of proportion). 

 

Oh well, I guess chevaliers aren't the knights in shining armor I had idealized in my mind... 

 

Although I still think it would be nice if we had a companion that was a bit closer to evil on the morality spectrum... just for a change.  

Sorry to burst your bubble. If it helps, originally when Loghain does his rant about Orlais at the Landsmeet, I thought "Well, I'm sure this is an exaggeration on his part." Then I read The Stolen Throne and I was like "I was wrong. Orlais and the Chevaliers did literally every single thing Loghain accused them of." 

 

As for having companions on the evil side of the morality spectrum, I'm sure we will since we already have if we go by the D&D spectrum.

[wcholcombe]

A bunch of other points to reply to:

 

City Elves aren't regarded as citizens in Orlais anymore then they are in Ferelden.  Celene seems to have a different view of this at the end of TME, but most orlesians obviously do not.  Therefore you can't truly criticize the Chevaliers for killing orlesian citizens when a great deal of the strife in Orlais with the city elves seems to be them wanting to be recognized as equal citizens when they aren't, thereby the chevaliers aren't killing citizens. Yes it sounds harsh, but in the context of the world they live in it really isn't.  Life is decidedly cheap in Thedas.

 

We have heard horror stories about the chevaliers but the only two we have actually dealt with seem to be honorable decent chaps.  Bending to the will of a peer pressure alcohol fueled tradition hardly makes one a horrible human being, especially in the context of their world.  I would no more characterize all or most Chevaliers as being despicable human beings from the stories in DAO then I would consider all Dalish evil hate filled specist based off the one clan in TME, nor would I assume all Fereldens are barbarians based off of Gaspard's comments in TME.  Aveline I believe in DA2 had a very high opinion of the Chevaliers.

 

As for moral standards about characters, I do find it funny to be drawing a line when we have characters who want to more or less: enslave the rest of the world(Sten and Iron Bull and Tallis), kill mages because they are mages, kill blood mages, kill templars because they are templars, we have an entire race that more or less does worse to the casteless then the other races do to each other, a mage who commits a terrorist act against a religious group, a member who kills just for money,  etc etc etc. Why do we keep them/not kill them?  The same reason we feel justified in going around and basically killing anyone who gets in the protagonist way.  We can rationalize it or justify it.  Some players don't and choose to kill Sten or others who have committed crimes, but if you could justify not killing any of them you would just as easily justify not killing a chevalier who you met in game.  It is all perspective.

[wcholcombe]

I was addressing that I don't think Orlais is the singular reason the Qunari were thwarted during the New Exalted Marches, and why I don't believe the Orlesian Empire is what is keeping the Qunari at bay.

 

 

It doesn't mean that Thedas would fall without Orlais, either.

One could argue that Orlais as the center of the chantry was the rallying point for the forces. I am not truly prepared to argue Orlais is what is keeping the Qunari at bay, just discussing points.  With Nevarra currently preparing for a bloody war of succession by all accounts, they aren't exactly in a position to sieze any opportunities presented by a weakened orlais, nor is Ferelden since the reason given for why they can't deal with the rifts is that they are still trying to recover from the devastation of the 5th Blight.

 

Personally if ever there was a time for the Qunari to go guns blazing full steam ahead at Tevinter now seems to be yelling at them to do it.

[In Exile]

It was apparently the combined efforts of all the nations working in unison to oust the Qunari; unlike some of the earlier posts, I don't think Orlais is the reason that keeps the Qunari at bay.

 

 

I wasn't disputing the numbers involved during the New Exalted Marches, I disagreed with the notion that Orlais is the only thing keeping the Qunari from invading Thedas.

 

I don't think Orlais is keeping the Qunari from invading Thedas (it wasn't my intention to suggest that), just that without Orlais, it's highly questionable whether Thedas could have ever evicted the Qunari. If Orlais falls, it looks like an occupation is inevitable, because Tevinter + Antiva, Rivain and the Free Marches don't have the might to stand up to them, Ferelden still hasn't recovered from the Blight, and it's hard to see the Anderfells + Nevera being enough on their own.  

[Maria Caliban]

Orlais is not the only reason the qunari haven't taken over Thedas, but the presence of a large, well-established nation with economic and military might that is also the seat of power for the Chantry, which can call an Exalted March that unites most nations under its banner, probably helps. It helps a lot.

[The Baconer]

A bunch of other points to reply to:

City Elves aren't regarded as citizens in Orlais anymore then they are in Ferelden. Celene seems to have a different view of this at the end of TME, but most orlesians obviously do not. Therefore you can't truly criticize the Chevaliers for killing orlesian citizens when a great deal of the strife in Orlais with the city elves seems to be them wanting to be recognized as equal citizens when they aren't, thereby the chevaliers aren't killing citizens. Yes it sounds harsh, but in the context of the world they live in it really isn't. Life is decidedly cheap in Thedas.

Whatever. If they're going to take refuge in relativity then they can't criticize me when I start offing them in droves. Them bring the nobility, not just Chevaliers exclusively.

[Master Shiori]

The fact that Celene wanted to regain the province of Ferelden (through a marriage with King Cailan) to stand in unison against Nevarra makes me suspect this may not be the case anymore. Regardless, I'm not sharing the opinion of some that Thedas is doomed without Orlais.

 

 

 

The Inquisition, the organization with a military that's going to stretch from the kingdom of Ferelden to the nation of Orlais? It's certainly a possibility. In conjunction with Nevarra, the Free Marches, and anyone else who isn't interested in submitting to the Qun, like the Circle mages and the Dalish.

An aliance with Ferelden is a wise political move for Celene. It would allow her to secure the eastern borders of Orlais before going to war with Navarra. Otherwise, Navarra might exploit the Fereldan dislike of Orlais by enlisting them as allies and thus forcing Celene to fight a war on 2 fronts. Also, it's quite possible that Nevarra's old alliances with the Free Marches are still active, in which case Orlais needs allies of its own.

 

Right now, Orlais can field large armies of highly trained professional soldiers (chevaliers) and also has within it's borders the largest Circle of Mages in Thedas (White Spire). Civil war and mage rebellion aside, Celene could efficiently mobilize huge resources and bring them to bear in case of another Qunari invasion, although even that wouldn't guarantee victory in the coming war. With Orlais broken down into petty states, all fighting among themselves for ultimate power, would reduce their contribution to fighting the Qunari, and I can't see where you'd find the replacements for men and resources that you lost but desperately need.

 

Inquisition cannot be considered a valid replacement for Orlais in terms of economic or military power. For one, we don't know how powerful the organization will be by the end of DAI (I doubt it'll be more powerful than any single nation in Thedas, though It'll probably surpass other independent military organizations, like Grey Wardens). Two, rulers and nobles don't look kindly on organizations that can threaten their power, especially if such organizations continue to exist after fulfilling their original purpose. 

[Mistic]

We have heard horror stories about the chevaliers but the only two we have actually dealt with seem to be honorable decent chaps.  Bending to the will of a peer pressure alcohol fueled tradition hardly makes one a horrible human being, especially in the context of their world.  I would no more characterize all or most Chevaliers as being despicable human beings from the stories in DAO then I would consider all Dalish evil hate filled specist based off the one clan in TME, nor would I assume all Fereldens are barbarians based off of Gaspard's comments in TME.  Aveline I believe in DA2 had a very high opinion of the Chevaliers.

 

I think people tend to confuse the system with the people inside. I abhor the Chevalier system. It's ripe for abuses, giving privileges without any kind of accountability. Thanks to TME, we know that those abuses are not just the byproduct of some rotten apples, but inherent and encouraged at least in a ritual initiation. So, yes, I hate the Chevalier system.

 

BUT that doesn't mean I hate the Chevaliers. Michel was as good as one could be, and it wouldn't be the first time DA characters had done horrible things to regret them later. Be careful, being a prodcut of their culture is not enough to give them a pass, because there are always dissenters (as Dorian in Tevinter) and they are also a product of their societies. However, condemning all of them for their system is wrong, since we have only met some of them.

 

As for Aveline, her father was an exiled chevalier. It explains a lot.

[wcholcombe]

I think people tend to confuse the system with the people inside. I abhor the Chevalier system. It's ripe for abuses, giving privileges without any kind of accountability. Thanks to TME, we know that those abuses are not just the byproduct of some rotten apples, but inherent and encouraged at least in a ritual initiation. So, yes, I hate the Chevalier system.

 

BUT that doesn't mean I hate the Chevaliers. Michel was as good as one could be, and it wouldn't be the first time DA characters had done horrible things to regret them later. Be careful, being a prodcut of their culture is not enough to give them a pass, because there are always dissenters (as Dorian in Tevinter) and they are also a product of their societies. However, condemning all of them for their system is wrong, since we have only met some of them.

 

As for Aveline, her father was an exiled chevalier. It explains a lot.

Aveline is exactly my point. It is view points and perception entirely.  And yes, being a product of their culture is an excuse.  You cannot create an artificial standard of morality which doesn't exist in Thedas to judge them by.  Yes, Chevaliers raped Loghain's mother. Are you telling me that no Ferelden soldiers have ever raped anyone?  The only thing we have that is a benchmark to hold against chevaliers is that as part of their initiation they kill a city elf which they and most of the human population of thedas have been raised to think are beneath them.  It is no different then how dwarves treat the casteless, but because our perceptions and how it is presented, we view the two situations entirely differently.  If Loghain's mother had been a casteless that was raped by dwarven royalty, most on here would probably hate all high class dwarves, but the story hasn't been framed as such.

Whatever. If they're going to take refuge in relativity then they can't criticize me when I start offing them in droves. Them bring the nobility, not just Chevaliers exclusively.

It isn't relativity and they aren't the ones taking refuge. However, criticizing a cultural group that is operating within the norm of not only its civilization but also the world as a whole isn't being realistic at all.  Beings are a product of their culture and their civilization they exist within, holding a citizen of Orlais or Ferelden to some artificial moral standard which does not largely exist in their world is pointless. 

[The Baconer]

It isn't relativity and they aren't the ones taking refuge. However, criticizing a cultural group that is operating within the norm of not only its civilization but also the world as a whole isn't being realistic at all.  Beings are a product of their culture and their civilization they exist within, holding a citizen of Orlais or Ferelden to some artificial moral standard which does not largely exist in their world is pointless. 

 

Yes, it is textbook cultural relativity. And in the face of persecution they'll no doubt attempt to take refuge within their fabricated status and rights.

[Sir DeLoria]

What would even make Lautrec a proper knight within that criteria?

Yeah, he's absolutely not an archetypical knight. Sorry for bringing up a bad example there.

But he's a great character.

[LobselVith8]

An aliance with Ferelden is a wise political move for Celene. It would allow her to secure the eastern borders of Orlais before going to war with Navarra. Otherwise, Navarra might exploit the Fereldan dislike of Orlais by enlisting them as allies and thus forcing Celene to fight a war on 2 fronts. Also, it's quite possible that Nevarra's old alliances with the Free Marches are still active, in which case Orlais needs allies of its own.

 

It would have erupted into civil war in Ferelden, because Loghain and every Fereldan who didn't want to be subservient to Orlais wouldn't accept it; Cailan was barely acknowledged King by the Landsmeet as it is. I hardly see it as a wise move.

 

Right now, Orlais can field large armies of highly trained professional soldiers (chevaliers) and also has within it's borders the largest Circle of Mages in Thedas (White Spire). Civil war and mage rebellion aside, Celene could efficiently mobilize huge resources and bring them to bear in case of another Qunari invasion, although even that wouldn't guarantee victory in the coming war. With Orlais broken down into petty states, all fighting among themselves for ultimate power, would reduce their contribution to fighting the Qunari, and I can't see where you'd find the replacements for men and resources that you lost but desperately need.

 

We don't know what state Orlais will be in if the player decides to resolve the civil war. The Mage-Templar War is why the Circle isn't available to Celene for the civil war. However, the developers already said the Inquisitor can ally with the mages early on.

 

Inquisition cannot be considered a valid replacement for Orlais in terms of economic or military power. For one, we don't know how powerful the organization will be by the end of DAI (I doubt it'll be more powerful than any single nation in Thedas, though It'll probably surpass other independent military organizations, like Grey Wardens). Two, rulers and nobles don't look kindly on organizations that can threaten their power, especially if such organizations continue to exist after fulfilling their original purpose. 

 

It's a military organization that spans two nations, lead by someone who apparently is viewed with some religious significance for surviving a devastating blast at the Urn of Sacred Ashes. The balance of power may sway heavily in the favor of the Inquisition. If the player decides to avoid siding with one of the participants of the Orlesian civil war and focus on empowering the nation of Ferleden and a liberated kingdom of the Dales, I don't think Thedas would be doomed.

[aTigerslunch]

My like button is failing to work for me.   

 

Sasha's posts, all of them I like, along with anyone else that sided with her, and there are quite a few. I was trying to like as well.  I don't like the Chevaliers, their initiation is wrong, and their thoughts of having a right to women is awful.

[Mistic]

Aveline is exactly my point. It is view points and perception entirely.  And yes, being a product of their culture is an excuse.  You cannot create an artificial standard of morality which doesn't exist in Thedas to judge them by.  Yes, Chevaliers raped Loghain's mother. Are you telling me that no Ferelden soldiers have ever raped anyone?  The only thing we have that is a benchmark to hold against chevaliers is that as part of their initiation they kill a city elf which they and most of the human population of thedas have been raised to think are beneath them.  It is no different then how dwarves treat the casteless, but because our perceptions and how it is presented, we view the two situations entirely differently.  If Loghain's mother had been a casteless that was raped by dwarven royalty, most on here would probably hate all high class dwarves, but the story hasn't been framed as such.

 

No, it's still not an excuse. The society that produced Danarius is the same that produced Dorian. The society that produced the chevaliers raping Loghain's mother is the same that produced the Orlesian commoner girl in the market who was praising Ferelden for its freedom despite its flaws.

 

It's a point that sometimes is overlooked: the general norm is not the entirety. As long as there's a dissenter pointing out that there's something wrong with the system, there's room to criticize. Because isn't the dissenter also a product of the same culture? I believe in cultural relativism; however, I don't believe in silencing those voices from the past that, contemporary to the events, proved that even in those dark moments there was a different opinion. But I understand that taking them into account would diminish some relativistic viewpoints, so it's easy to stereotype whole countries and ages.

 

The example of Orzammar is in fact excellent: despite being the most traditionalistic country in the whole Thedas, there's a privileged guy that can become king that thinks that casteless are as good as any other to fight the darkspawn and, of course, fight for their king, honest payment included. Ok, Bhelen was a backstabbing bastard, but even a prince like him could realize that there was a flaw in the system... and then take advantage of it.

[Dean_the_Young]

No, it's still not an excuse. The society that produced Danarius is the same that produced Dorian. The society that produced the chevaliers raping Loghain's mother is the same that produced the Orlesian commoner girl in the market who was praising Ferelden for its freedom despite its flaws.

 

It's a point that sometimes is overlooked: the general norm is not the entirety. As long as there's a dissenter pointing out that there's something wrong with the system, there's room to criticize. Because isn't the dissenter also a product of the same culture? I believe in cultural relativism; however, I don't believe in silencing those voices from the past that, contemporary to the events, proved that even in those dark moments there was a different opinion. But I understand that taking them into account would diminish some relativistic viewpoints, so it's easy to stereotype whole countries and ages.

 

The example of Orzammar is in fact excellent: despite being the most traditionalistic country in the whole Thedas, there's a privileged guy that can become king that thinks that casteless are as good as any other to fight the darkspawn and, of course, fight for their king, honest payment included. Ok, Bhelen was a backstabbing bastard, but even a prince like him could realize that there was a flaw in the system... and then take advantage of it.

Indeed. Which is why the most terrifying, and often most terrible, societies are the ones that smother dissent and try to prevent any information from coming or going. The isolated society that lets no one come or go is also the society that lets no one leave- and the more committed it is to ideological or cultural purity, the less kind it will be to its dissidents.

 

And there are always, always, dissidents. Those that claim otherwise are either fantasies, delusional, or both. There is no such thing as a closed society that universally wants anything: a certain religion, a certain culture, or even to be closed and left alone. Such claims are those of the ones in power, and the ones who suppress dissent.

[Maria Caliban]

Whatever. If they're going to take refuge in relativity then they can't criticize me when I start offing them in droves. Them bring the nobility, not just Chevaliers exclusively.

Yes, they can; your culture does not approve of offing people in droves because they were born to nobility.

[The Baconer]

Yes, they can; your culture does not approve of offing people in droves because they were born to nobility.

 

They don't know that. My Inquisitor only does what the Maker tells her to.

[xyzmkrysvr]

As for having companions on the evil side of the morality spectrum, I'm sure we will since we already have if we go by the D&D spectrum.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance again, but I'm unfamiliar with the D&D spectrum... Which of our companions do you think is more more evil than good??

 We have heard horror stories about the chevaliers but the only two we have actually dealt with seem to be honorable decent chaps.  Bending to the will of a peer pressure alcohol fueled tradition hardly makes one a horrible human being, especially in the context of their world. 
As for moral standards about characters, I do find it funny to be drawing a line when we have characters who want to more or less: enslave the rest of the world(Sten and Iron Bull and Tallis), kill mages because they are mages, kill blood mages, kill templars because they are templars, we have an entire race that more or less does worse to the casteless then the other races do to each other, a mage who commits a terrorist act against a religious group, a member who kills just for money,  etc etc etc. Why do we keep them/not kill them?  The same reason we feel justified in going around and basically killing anyone who gets in the protagonist way.  We can rationalize it or justify it.  Some players don't and choose to kill Sten or others who have committed crimes, but if you could justify not killing any of them you would just as easily justify not killing a chevalier who you met in game.  It is all perspective.

 

Thank you! This sums up everything I've been thinking but am unable to articulate because I'm not as eloquent as you are!

 

I think people tend to confuse the system with the people inside. I abhor the Chevalier system. It's ripe for abuses, giving privileges without any kind of accountability. Thanks to TME, we know that those abuses are not just the byproduct of some rotten apples, but inherent and encouraged at least in a ritual initiation. So, yes, I hate the Chevalier system. 
BUT that doesn't mean I hate the Chevaliers. Michel was as good as one could be, and it wouldn't be the first time DA characters had done horrible things to regret them later. Be careful, being a prodcut of their culture is not enough to give them a pass, because there are always dissenters (as Dorian in Tevinter) and they are also a product of their societies. However, condemning all of them for their system is wrong, since we have only met some of them.
 

  

That last sentence really encapsulates my intent in creating this thread: I guess I was just curious to learn more about the chevaliers because we've been presented with one side of their story and I wanted to have a chevalier companion to learn for ourselves what they're really like.

The only thing we have that is a benchmark to hold against chevaliers is that as part of their initiation they kill a city elf which they and most of the human population of thedas have been raised to think are beneath them.  It is no different then how dwarves treat the casteless, but because our perceptions and how it is presented, we view the two situations entirely differently.  If Loghain's mother had been a casteless that was raped by dwarven royalty, most on here would probably hate all high class dwarves, but the story hasn't been framed as such.

That's a great point. It makes me wonder why Bioware has chosen to frame the chevaliers in such a negative light... Surely they have their reasons, but I was kind of surprised to find out how bad they actually are... Like Sasha, I assumed most of it was anti-Orlesian heresy, but when we learned the Orlesian perspective was just as bad as what the Fereldens had been saying, I was disappointed.

If Bioware is able to make the darkspawn somewhat sympathetic with redeeming qualities (based on what learned in Awakening), it's interesting that they would choose to make the chevaliers such monsters in comparison.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance again, but I'm unfamiliar with the D&D spectrum... Which of our companions do you think is more more evil than good??

This thing:

[SnakeCode]

Haha well it's futile to try to debate with you because you clearly know more about the history and lore of the Dragon Age universe than I do (I didn't even know that Loghain's mother was raped by chevaliers...! I guess that's mentioned in The Stolen Throne book?) And I didn't know that the chevaliers had trainers that watched them murder a city elf... I kind of thought (hoped?) that the whole initiation rite thing was just a rumor with maybe a shred of truth to it (maybe one or two isolated incidents were blown out of proportion). 

 

Oh well, I guess chevaliers aren't the knights in shining armor I had idealized in my mind... 

 

Although I still think it would be nice if we had a companion that was a bit closer to evil on the morality spectrum... just for a change.  

I think the DA universe has done a pretty good job of telling the player that people who kill (in universe, of course) aren't inherently evil, or even bad people. People kill for many reasons. Chevaliers kill because they are ordered to, they are no different from Leliana or Zevran.

 

I'd advise you to read the books and develop your own opinion of the Chevaliers, they're a good read.