There is nothing in the teaching of the Chantry that suggests the Maker is omnipotent.
The Chant implies just the opposite, in fact, that the Maker is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient.
He creates his First Children, they are flawed, and rather than repair them he creates his Second Children.
The chantry saved the mages from the original mage hunters who later became the templars. After what the teventirs did, the mages were lucky the chantry showed mercy. Make no mistake i supported the mages in da2 but the chantry had nothing to do with the templars. elthina was old so she cudnt stop meredith. meredith's coup was her own making, the chantry had nothing to do with it.
The Chantry controlled Circles placed mages under the auspices of the Chantry, which doesn't seem that altruistic to me, and as Lambert comments on, the Chantry taught the Andrastian people that mages and magic should be feared; their rhetoric is why Andrastians in Origins and Dragon Age II continually refer to magic as a "curse", and simply one of the reasons why some people don't like the organization.
Ofcourse the chantry in orlais has dirt on them. the politicians use it to further their ambitions. Ok this can be blamed. And the exalted march on the dales can be blamed but not mage oppresion
When templars are taught that they have "dominion over mages by divine right", I think people can feel free to dislike the Andrastian Chantry if they choose to.
The Chantry controlled Circles placed mages under the auspices of the Chantry, which doesn't seem that altruistic to me, and as Lambert comments on, the Chantry taught the Andrastian people that mages and magic should be feared; their rhetoric is why Andrastians in Origins and Dragon Age II continually refer to magic as a "curse", and simply one of the reasons why some people don't like the organization.
The Mages put themselves under the protection of the Chantry, to escape being indiscriminately murdered by commoners and the original Inquisition. The Circles were a response to their later desire to be more than living candle matches.
The Chant implies just the opposite, in fact, that the Maker is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient.
He creates his First Children, they are flawed, and rather than repair them he creates his Second Children.
Is it that he couldn't, or just didn't care to?
Then again, I half-seriously treat the Maker as the developer's collective proxy, so a creator who just didn't give a **** about the flaws in the creation and would make more new things rather than remake the old fits right in with that.
The Mages put themselves under the protection of the Chantry, to escape being indiscriminately murdered by commoners and the original Inquisition. The Circles were a response to their later desire to be more than living candle matches.
That was the story of the origin of the Circle Towers, where the mages who lead a peaceful protest over their lack of rights, and nearly faced the wrath of Divine Ambrosia II - who contemplated an Exalted March on her own cathedral. Given how Alistair comments on how the Circles are technically supposed to be independent (followed by laughter from Morrigan), we know how well that turned out.
Given how 'peacefully' mages rebelled in dao tells me sth oppositeThat was the story of the origin of the Circle Towers, where the mages who lead a peaceful protest over their lack of rights, and nearly faced the wrath of Divine Ambrosia II - who contemplated an Exalted March on her own cathedral. Given how Alistair comments on how the Circles are technically supposed to be independent (followed by laughter from Morrigan), we know how well that turned out.
Given how 'peacefully' mages rebelled in dao tells me sth opposite
No one claims that Uldred's rebellion was peaceful, unlike the peaceful protest of the mages in the cathedral, so I don't see your point. Another violent uprising against the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles was the rebellion lead by Aldenon the Wise (the co-founder of Ferelden) and his rebel mages against the Chantry and their templars, because he wanted to establish a kingdom where all people would be free.
No one claims that Uldred's rebellion was peaceful, unlike the peaceful protest of the mages in the cathedral, so I don't see your point. Another violent uprising against the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles was the rebellion lead by Aldenon the Wise (the co-founder of Ferelden) and his rebel mages against the Chantry and their templars, because he wanted to establish a kingdom where all people would be free.
That didn't work out very well for Aldenon, unfortunately.
Getting back to the nature of the Maker, may be the clue is in the name. It only makes/creates and it goes against its nature to destroy what it created. Anyway it was more that it was disappointed in what the spirits did with its creation rather than it wanted to wipe the slate clean and start again. So it tries and different model to see if that works out better. Then the creations in the material world seem to have a bad influence on the spiritual, in that the spirits start picking up on emotions and identifying with them, then it works back the other way that the more powerful ones start influencing the source of these emotions.
The morality of the Chant would seem to be the Maker saying, "this is how you were meant to behave to each other," and thus what attracts him. For some reason what can only be described as more benign spirits seem harder to interact with than the malign ones. From what we have been told, some of the most powerful of spirits are the faith spirits. These are the ones that can achieve the greatest healing power. This may not be simply physical healing but mental as well. What particular attracts them is not stated but they do seem to help those who have great belief in helping others, in using whatever talents they have been given, including magic, for the good of others. The spirit inside Wynne was extremely powerful in the Fade against the demon but only after Wynne seemed to have experienced a moment of doubt, others had to intervene and then they were at risk. I've never been sure if it was simply the spirit in her taking over because she no longer had the mental strength herself or whether concern for the others broke through Wynne's despair and allowed the spirit to act.
The fact is you cannot simply say, or the Maker or whatever failed to act because there does seem to be some sort of co-operative action involved. I actually feel that the elven Creators were in fact powerful faith spirits. This is why when elves appear to demonstrate loyalty to their beliefs, they feel the gods have responded. The Creators seem to approve of the same community spirit that is contained in the moral parts of the Chant of Light. All the various facets that they are meant to represent involve teaching and helping the elven community. May be their absence in the time of need in Arlathan and the Dalish insistence of remembering what it is to be elves is based on a dim racial memory that at some point their leaders at least "forgot". Was it that in the face of human aggression they turned to less benign spirits to aid them in their fight?
Fen'Harel is of course the exception to this but then he is acknowledged as such. He seems like a spirit of paradox and irony. May be he favours self sufficiency and self interest. He doesn't seem to be on anyone's side in particular - just acts as the mood takes him to keep things interesting (for him).
Most of mob violence occurs when people are afraid. They were afraid of the big horned giants in DA2, which is how Petrice and others could manipulate them. In Asunder the villagers had heard that a mage had attacked the Divine and this followed on from a mage girl (possibly the one Cole kills) burning down the family farm house, with her family in it. Their ring leader listed a string of events linked to mages in their area, so this would account for why feelings (particularly his feelings) were running high but the basis for those feelings was fear. Obviously his expressed opinions seemed to reflect what he had been taught, that phrase "curse" came up once again but nothing seemed to have occurred in their areas to dispel that notion. Nevertheless when he stated "the Maker would not allow it", Evangeline, who knows the Chant very well, was quick to correct him. The thing is mob violence occurs everywhere, it is the result of prejudice exacerbated by fear or hate that seems part of human nature. Religion is not to blame any more than race, nationhood or what team you belong to.
The prejudices against magic are not solely down to what the Chantry teaches. There are strong historical reasons why people have a fear of mages. Many villages would be able to quote incidents, like the one in Asunder, where the community has been harmed by magic. There is also the continued existence of Tevinter to inspire fear. If Dorian could be successful in his crusade (which I think extremely unlikely on the facts I have read thus far), the corruption at the heart of government was removed and Tevinter became a shining example of how a mage run country benefitted all its citizens, not just the mages, then the fear in the rest of Thedas of mages returning to power would be unjustified. As it is, I understand their fear even though I, as someone who prefers to play a mage, suffers by it. I don't think the Circles in their current form are the answer. I think the Dalish do have something to teach with regard how mages can happily co-exist with their community and benefit it. It is part of the reason why I want to encourage them to engage in a co-operative rather than isolationist future and why I have been pondering if there is a way of reconciling two sets of beliefs to allow them to co-exist in one set, so that no one is forced to surrender their faith.
Solas doesn't have to be Dalish to know what happens in a particular area. He just goes there, lies down and starts experiencing the memories of the place. That is why I hope he is going to throw some light on events in the Dales, since we are going to be visiting there and the fact that his favourite phrase concerning the history of the relationship between elves and humans is that "It's complicated." Humans and elves have worked together in the past towards a united goal for the common good. I'd like to think it might be possible again.
Wow ur really serious about the topic.Getting back to the nature of the Maker, may be the clue is in the name. It only makes/creates and it goes against its nature to destroy what it created. Anyway it was more that it was disappointed in what the spirits did with its creation rather than it wanted to wipe the slate clean and start again. So it tries and different model to see if that works out better. Then the creations in the material world seem to have a bad influence on the spiritual, in that the spirits start picking up on emotions and identifying with them, then it works back the other way that the more powerful ones start influencing the source of these emotions.
The morality of the Chant would seem to be the Maker saying, "this is how you were meant to behave to each other," and thus what attracts him. For some reason what can only be described as more benign spirits seem harder to interact with than the malign ones. From what we have been told, some of the most powerful of spirits are the faith spirits. These are the ones that can achieve the greatest healing power. This may not be simply physical healing but mental as well. What particular attracts them is not stated but they do seem to help those who have great belief in helping others, in using whatever talents they have been given, including magic, for the good of others. The spirit inside Wynne was extremely powerful in the Fade against the demon but only after Wynne seemed to have experienced a moment of doubt, others had to intervene and then they were at risk. I've never been sure if it was simply the spirit in her taking over because she no longer had the mental strength herself or whether concern for the others broke through Wynne's despair and allowed the spirit to act.
The fact is you cannot simply say, or the Maker or whatever failed to act because there does seem to be some sort of co-operative action involved. I actually feel that the elven Creators were in fact powerful faith spirits. This is why when elves appear to demonstrate loyalty to their beliefs, they feel the gods have responded. The Creators seem to approve of the same community spirit that is contained in the moral parts of the Chant of Light. All the various facets that they are meant to represent involve teaching and helping the elven community. May be their absence in the time of need in Arlathan and the Dalish insistence of remembering what it is to be elves is based on a dim racial memory that at some point their leaders at least "forgot". Was it that in the face of human aggression they turned to less benign spirits to aid them in their fight?
Fen'Harel is of course the exception to this but then he is acknowledged as such. He seems like a spirit of paradox and irony. May be he favours self sufficiency and self interest. He doesn't seem to be on anyone's side in particular - just acts as the mood takes him to keep things interesting (for him).
Most of mob violence occurs when people are afraid. They were afraid of the big horned giants in DA2, which is how Petrice and others could manipulate them. In Asunder the villagers had heard that a mage had attacked the Divine and this followed on from a mage girl (possibly the one Cole kills) burning down the family farm house, with her family in it. Their ring leader listed a string of events linked to mages in their area, so this would account for why feelings (particularly his feelings) were running high but the basis for those feelings was fear. Obviously his expressed opinions seemed to reflect what he had been taught, that phrase "curse" came up once again but nothing seemed to have occurred in their areas to dispel that notion. Nevertheless when he stated "the Maker would not allow it", Evangeline, who knows the Chant very well, was quick to correct him. The thing is mob violence occurs everywhere, it is the result of prejudice exacerbated by fear or hate that seems part of human nature. Religion is not to blame any more than race, nationhood or what team you belong to.
The prejudices against magic are not solely down to what the Chantry teaches. There are strong historical reasons why people have a fear of mages. Many villages would be able to quote incidents, like the one in Asunder, where the community has been harmed by magic. There is also the continued existence of Tevinter to inspire fear. If Dorian could be successful in his crusade (which I think extremely unlikely on the facts I have read thus far), the corruption at the heart of government was removed and Tevinter became a shining example of how a mage run country benefitted all its citizens, not just the mages, then the fear in the rest of Thedas of mages returning to power would be unjustified. As it is, I understand their fear even though I, as someone who prefers to play a mage, suffers by it. I don't think the Circles in their current form are the answer. I think the Dalish do have something to teach with regard how mages can happily co-exist with their community and benefit it. It is part of the reason why I want to encourage them to engage in a co-operative rather than isolationist future and why I have been pondering if there is a way of reconciling two sets of beliefs to allow them to co-exist in one set, so that no one is forced to surrender their faith.
Solas doesn't have to be Dalish to know what happens in a particular area. He just goes there, lies down and starts experiencing the memories of the place. That is why I hope he is going to throw some light on events in the Dales, since we are going to be visiting there and the fact that his favourite phrase concerning the history of the relationship between elves and humans is that "It's complicated." Humans and elves have worked together in the past towards a united goal for the common good. I'd like to think it might be possible again.
On the topic +1. i agree with most of ur points here. Except the maker was probably gutted by his creation's worship of dragons. So he abondoned. He does seem like a cry baby to meGetting back to the nature of the Maker, may be the clue is in the name. It only makes/creates and it goes against its nature to destroy what it created. Anyway it was more that it was disappointed in what the spirits did with its creation rather than it wanted to wipe the slate clean and start again. So it tries and different model to see if that works out better. Then the creations in the material world seem to have a bad influence on the spiritual, in that the spirits start picking up on emotions and identifying with them, then it works back the other way that the more powerful ones start influencing the source of these emotions.
The morality of the Chant would seem to be the Maker saying, "this is how you were meant to behave to each other," and thus what attracts him. For some reason what can only be described as more benign spirits seem harder to interact with than the malign ones. From what we have been told, some of the most powerful of spirits are the faith spirits. These are the ones that can achieve the greatest healing power. This may not be simply physical healing but mental as well. What particular attracts them is not stated but they do seem to help those who have great belief in helping others, in using whatever talents they have been given, including magic, for the good of others. The spirit inside Wynne was extremely powerful in the Fade against the demon but only after Wynne seemed to have experienced a moment of doubt, others had to intervene and then they were at risk. I've never been sure if it was simply the spirit in her taking over because she no longer had the mental strength herself or whether concern for the others broke through Wynne's despair and allowed the spirit to act.
The fact is you cannot simply say, or the Maker or whatever failed to act because there does seem to be some sort of co-operative action involved. I actually feel that the elven Creators were in fact powerful faith spirits. This is why when elves appear to demonstrate loyalty to their beliefs, they feel the gods have responded. The Creators seem to approve of the same community spirit that is contained in the moral parts of the Chant of Light. All the various facets that they are meant to represent involve teaching and helping the elven community. May be their absence in the time of need in Arlathan and the Dalish insistence of remembering what it is to be elves is based on a dim racial memory that at some point their leaders at least "forgot". Was it that in the face of human aggression they turned to less benign spirits to aid them in their fight?
Fen'Harel is of course the exception to this but then he is acknowledged as such. He seems like a spirit of paradox and irony. May be he favours self sufficiency and self interest. He doesn't seem to be on anyone's side in particular - just acts as the mood takes him to keep things interesting (for him).
Most of mob violence occurs when people are afraid. They were afraid of the big horned giants in DA2, which is how Petrice and others could manipulate them. In Asunder the villagers had heard that a mage had attacked the Divine and this followed on from a mage girl (possibly the one Cole kills) burning down the family farm house, with her family in it. Their ring leader listed a string of events linked to mages in their area, so this would account for why feelings (particularly his feelings) were running high but the basis for those feelings was fear. Obviously his expressed opinions seemed to reflect what he had been taught, that phrase "curse" came up once again but nothing seemed to have occurred in their areas to dispel that notion. Nevertheless when he stated "the Maker would not allow it", Evangeline, who knows the Chant very well, was quick to correct him. The thing is mob violence occurs everywhere, it is the result of prejudice exacerbated by fear or hate that seems part of human nature. Religion is not to blame any more than race, nationhood or what team you belong to.
The prejudices against magic are not solely down to what the Chantry teaches. There are strong historical reasons why people have a fear of mages. Many villages would be able to quote incidents, like the one in Asunder, where the community has been harmed by magic. There is also the continued existence of Tevinter to inspire fear. If Dorian could be successful in his crusade (which I think extremely unlikely on the facts I have read thus far), the corruption at the heart of government was removed and Tevinter became a shining example of how a mage run country benefitted all its citizens, not just the mages, then the fear in the rest of Thedas of mages returning to power would be unjustified. As it is, I understand their fear even though I, as someone who prefers to play a mage, suffers by it. I don't think the Circles in their current form are the answer. I think the Dalish do have something to teach with regard how mages can happily co-exist with their community and benefit it. It is part of the reason why I want to encourage them to engage in a co-operative rather than isolationist future and why I have been pondering if there is a way of reconciling two sets of beliefs to allow them to co-exist in one set, so that no one is forced to surrender their faith.
Solas doesn't have to be Dalish to know what happens in a particular area. He just goes there, lies down and starts experiencing the memories of the place. That is why I hope he is going to throw some light on events in the Dales, since we are going to be visiting there and the fact that his favourite phrase concerning the history of the relationship between elves and humans is that "It's complicated." Humans and elves have worked together in the past towards a united goal for the common good. I'd like to think it might be possible again.
I suppose I'm a bit of a "method" role player. Plus I'm on my summer break, have done all my chores and basically have got way too much time on my hands! Got a friend coming to stay today so I'll be missing for a while.
I do give a lot of thought to the real world problems but since I am very small fry no one is going to listen to me. At least here you do get a response.
Getting back to the nature of the Maker, may be the clue is in the name. It only makes/creates and it goes against its nature to destroy what it created. Anyway it was more that it was disappointed in what the spirits did with its creation rather than it wanted to wipe the slate clean and start again. So it tries and different model to see if that works out better. Then the creations in the material world seem to have a bad influence on the spiritual, in that the spirits start picking up on emotions and identifying with them, then it works back the other way that the more powerful ones start influencing the source of these emotions.
The morality of the Chant would seem to be the Maker saying, "this is how you were meant to behave to each other," and thus what attracts him. For some reason what can only be described as more benign spirits seem harder to interact with than the malign ones. From what we have been told, some of the most powerful of spirits are the faith spirits. These are the ones that can achieve the greatest healing power. This may not be simply physical healing but mental as well. What particular attracts them is not stated but they do seem to help those who have great belief in helping others, in using whatever talents they have been given, including magic, for the good of others. The spirit inside Wynne was extremely powerful in the Fade against the demon but only after Wynne seemed to have experienced a moment of doubt, others had to intervene and then they were at risk. I've never been sure if it was simply the spirit in her taking over because she no longer had the mental strength herself or whether concern for the others broke through Wynne's despair and allowed the spirit to act.
The fact is you cannot simply say, or the Maker or whatever failed to act because there does seem to be some sort of co-operative action involved. I actually feel that the elven Creators were in fact powerful faith spirits. This is why when elves appear to demonstrate loyalty to their beliefs, they feel the gods have responded. The Creators seem to approve of the same community spirit that is contained in the moral parts of the Chant of Light. All the various facets that they are meant to represent involve teaching and helping the elven community. May be their absence in the time of need in Arlathan and the Dalish insistence of remembering what it is to be elves is based on a dim racial memory that at some point their leaders at least "forgot". Was it that in the face of human aggression they turned to less benign spirits to aid them in their fight?
IIRC, from developer statements, the most powerful spirits of all are spirits of hope, mirrored by the most powerful demons, despair demons.
And if the Maker's true nature is never revealed, then there's really no reason to believe that he ever did act.
Most of mob violence occurs when people are afraid. They were afraid of the big horned giants in DA2, which is how Petrice and others could manipulate them. In Asunder the villagers had heard that a mage had attacked the Divine and this followed on from a mage girl (possibly the one Cole kills) burning down the family farm house, with her family in it. Their ring leader listed a string of events linked to mages in their area, so this would account for why feelings (particularly his feelings) were running high but the basis for those feelings was fear. Obviously his expressed opinions seemed to reflect what he had been taught, that phrase "curse" came up once again but nothing seemed to have occurred in their areas to dispel that notion. Nevertheless when he stated "the Maker would not allow it", Evangeline, who knows the Chant very well, was quick to correct him. The thing is mob violence occurs everywhere, it is the result of prejudice exacerbated by fear or hate that seems part of human nature. Religion is not to blame any more than race, nationhood or what team you belong to.
What it targets, though, can be blamed on religion, especially if that religion outright channels peoples' fear to help it stay in power.
The prejudices against magic are not solely down to what the Chantry teaches. There are strong historical reasons why people have a fear of mages. Many villages would be able to quote incidents, like the one in Asunder, where the community has been harmed by magic. There is also the continued existence of Tevinter to inspire fear. If Dorian could be successful in his crusade (which I think extremely unlikely on the facts I have read thus far), the corruption at the heart of government was removed and Tevinter became a shining example of how a mage run country benefitted all its citizens, not just the mages, then the fear in the rest of Thedas of mages returning to power would be unjustified. As it is, I understand their fear even though I, as someone who prefers to play a mage, suffers by it. I don't think the Circles in their current form are the answer. I think the Dalish do have something to teach with regard how mages can happily co-exist with their community and benefit it. It is part of the reason why I want to encourage them to engage in a co-operative rather than isolationist future and why I have been pondering if there is a way of reconciling two sets of beliefs to allow them to co-exist in one set, so that no one is forced to surrender their faith.
It's true that many of those prejudices did not come from the Chantry: the Chantry came largely from those prejudices. But it exacerbates and reinforces them. I would be willing to work toward a cooperative future, though, assuming some means could be found to prevent interbreeding from slowly killing off the elves.
So you'd be saying, in that case, that the Maker was unable to prevent the magisters from leaving the Black City?
Do you think that the Maker not preventing them from leaving means that he was unable? Maybe he could have stopped them but chose not to, not because he wanted people to suffer as a result but because he's not super-interventionist. Someone not stopping an action doesn 't mean that they endorse it. The ultimate extreme of a powerful interventionist deity preventing all people from doing wrongful, harmful things is the total loss of people's freedom.
Do you think that the Maker not preventing them from leaving means that he was unable? Someone not stopping an action doesn 't mean that they endorse it. The ultimate extreme of a powerful interventionist deity preventing all people from doing wrongful, harmful things is the total loss of people's freedom.
Someone not stopping a destructive action when it was well within their power to do so is either tacit approval or just immoral apathy, yes. Particularly one so destructive as the creation of the darkspawn.
Someone not stopping a destructive action when it was well within their power to do so is either tacit approval or just immoral apathy, yes. Particularly one so destructive as the creation of the darkspawn.
No, I disagree. People commit destructive actions all the time. If a powerful deity intervened to stop them every time, freedom would become completely meaningless. If we then accept that a deity shouldn't always intervene, due to the importance of people's freedom, it then only becomes a question of how much the deity should intervene, if ever.
Maybe the Maker created the darkspawn, or maybe it was their own corruption by comparison with the Maker (which would have to be quite a lot, what with their massive murder of slaves in the blood magic ritual that brought them to the Golden City). Of course, we don't really know how much truth is in any of these accounts.
No, I disagree. People commit destructive actions all the time. If a powerful deity intervened to stop them every time, freedom would become completely meaningless. If we then accept that a deity shouldn't always intervene, due to the importance of people's freedom, it then only becomes a question of how much the deity should intervene, if ever.
Firstly, I don't accept that, because there'd be no reason to stop non-destructive actions, so it wouldn't be so different from living under a codified set of laws, except that destructive actions would be prevented instead of just punished. Thus, you could still have plenty of freedom within limits, as we accept within our own societies. Second, if said deity did create the world, it'd have been trivial to simply not create the desire to perform destructive actions (most of us simply don't feel the urge to tunnel through walls via headbutting; does the lack of a desire to perform certain actions curtail free will?), or, even more simply, just make humans invulnerable.
Maybe the Maker created the darkspawn, or maybe it was their own corruption by comparison with the Maker (which would have to be quite a lot, what with their massive murder of slaves in the blood magic ritual that brought them to the Golden City). Of course, we don't really know how much truth is in any of these accounts.
Then why couldn't the Maker have imprisoned them as he allegedly did the Old Gods?
All these speculations presuppose that something like the Maker, or the elven gods, actually exists. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that at this point. Religious tales are instructional, not derived from observation but made to perpetuate a certain ideology using historical events, often heavily reinterpreted, as a vehicle. Whether you agree with the ideology involved or not, I see no reason to postulate extradimensional entities behind what is all too clearly driven by a very human need.
Which is the reason why I treat the stories of the gods as irrelevant except for how they influence policy. Maybe it will be revealed that Fen'Harel is a powerful Fade spirit, then of course I will reconsider, but even should such a thing about the nature of the gods be revealed, it only draws attention to what people should ask in the first place: if these entities exist, do they deserve reverence and worship? An entity who punishes all of humanity for the crimes of a few? Who leaves the world pouting and promises only to come back when the world is unified in his worship? I do not recognize any entity as a deity, whether it has revealed itself or not, but Fen'Harel I could at least afford respect...
Firstly, I don't accept that, because there'd be no reason to stop non-destructive actions, so it wouldn't be so different from living under a codified set of laws, except that destructive actions would be prevented instead of just punished. Thus, you could still have plenty of freedom within limits, as we accept within our own societies. Second, if said deity did create the world, it'd have been trivial to simply not create the desire to perform destructive actions (most of us simply don't feel the urge to tunnel through walls via headbutting; does the lack of a desire to perform certain actions curtail free will?), or, even more simply, just make humans invulnerable.
One might argue that without the temptation to perform selfish or malicious acts, performing virtuous acts would lose much of its meaning. Individuals and societies define themselves as much by what they aren't as what they are (Just ask the Dalish).
Firstly, I don't accept that, because there'd be no reason to stop non-destructive actions, so it wouldn't be so different from living under a codified set of laws, except that destructive actions would be prevented instead of just punished. Thus, you could still have plenty of freedom within limits, as we accept within our own societies. Second, if said deity did create the world, it'd have been trivial to simply not create the desire to perform destructive actions (most of us simply don't feel the urge to tunnel through walls via headbutting; does the lack of a desire to perform certain actions curtail free will?), or, even more simply, just make humans invulnerable.
Then why couldn't the Maker have imprisoned them as he allegedly did the Old Gods?
If you cannot say "no," then your "yes" has no meaning. It is logically incoherent to propose a state of freedom in which all negative actions would be prevented, and even more so to suggest that beings could be created in such a way that they would be free but never desire to commit destructive actions. If you only have one "option," then you have no choice. The only situation in which this is somewhat untrue is the way in which one feels like there's only one thing that one can do in a situation, because of long practice at making the same choice in the same way every time. So, for instance, years of refusing to treat people unfairly would eventually bring one to point where one wouldn't even consider being unfair as an option. But this is only possible via freedom.
As for why "couldn't" the Maker imprison them - I never said that he couldn't. Only that he didn't and that there are more possible reasons for him not doing so than just being evil, e.g. letting people experience the negative consequences of chosen actions as part of a learning process in a world filled with freedom.
As Ieldra points out, though, it's by no means certain that the Maker, elven gods, or old gods even exist. This is one of the things that I like about Dragon Age: its religious ambiguity is more realistic to me than D&D style deities.
It is logically incoherent to propose a state of freedom in which all negative actions would be prevented, and even more so to suggest that beings could be created in such a way that they would be free but never desire to commit destructive actions.
This is not true. If you are made in a way that you never desire some things, then this does not reduce your freedom, for freedom lies in being able to do what you want. Were it not so, none of us could ever be called free, because there are always things we do not desire because of who and what we are.
The question is, of course, whether as a creator of life you have an obligation to create beings with less restriction on their natures, or beings with less potentially negative impact on their environment. If you recognize any such impact as negative in the first place. Or any obligation at all. My personal opinion is that if you have the ability to create life, you have an obligation to not make it less potentially powerful than yourself, for doing so would essentially create a slave.
Edit:
I agree with you that the religious ambiguity of the DA setting is one of the things that makes it compelling.
If you cannot say "no," then your "yes" has no meaning. It is logically incoherent to propose a state of freedom in which all negative actions would be prevented, and even more so to suggest that beings could be created in such a way that they would be free but never desire to commit destructive actions. If you only have one "option," then you have no choice. The only situation in which this is somewhat untrue is the way in which one feels like there's only one thing that one can do in a situation, because of long practice at making the same choice in the same way every time. So, for instance, years of refusing to treat people unfairly would eventually bring one to point where one wouldn't even consider being unfair as an option. But this is only possible via freedom.
Hardly. For instance, I can choose to eat cereal with or without milk; neither choice is destructive, and neither would be prevented.There's infinite room for freedom of choice even if nothing would ever be gained by choosing destruction. Removing some options would never remove them all.
As for why "couldn't" the Maker imprison them - I never said that he couldn't. Only that he didn't and that there are more possible reasons for him not doing so than just being evil, e.g. letting people experience the negative consequences of chosen actions as part of a learning process in a world filled with freedom.
Thus meaning that the Maker is guilty for every single Blight.
As Ieldra points out, though, it's by no means certain that the Maker, elven gods, or old gods even exist. This is one of the things that I like about Dragon Age: its religious ambiguity is more realistic to me than D&D style deities.
True, these deities not actually existing means most of this discussion moot. I suppose you could spread a rumor and get the Dalish angry but that's it.
This is not true. If you are made in a way that you never desire some things, then this does not reduce your freedom, for freedom lies in being able to do what you want. Were it not so, none of us could ever be called free, because there are always things we do not desire because of who and what we are.
I disagree re. freedom. Certainly, there are some things that we never desire, but I think that's because they're outside of our terms of reference. Within our terms of reference, it seems likely that most things are desired by someone, somewhere. Look at all the niche interests that don't interest you or me, but interest someone (and many people would consider your interest or mine to be niche!). As human beings, as a whole, we have a huge capacity for desire. On the individual level, the things that we do end up wanting are influenced, in part, by the choices of others (e.g. parents and friends), so it's all part of a matrix of freedom.
But the question that's actually being examined here covers non-destructive vs. destructive choice, helping vs. hurting, positive vs. negative. This is all moral choice. But the capacity to make moral decisions is based in part on the capacity to look at the world around oneself and decide what is right or wrong. If some universal right choice was imposed on everyone, then either their capacity to construct their own morality would be removed and they'd automatically see everything according to the universal morality (and they'd be happy with the "choice" they made), or they would be able to construct their own morality but still forced to follow the guidelines of the external, universal morality (and thus unhappy). Either way, freedom would be restricted.
The question is, of course, whether as a creator of life you have an obligation to create beings with less restriction on their natures, or beings with less potentially negative impact on their environment. If you recognize any such impact as negative in the first place. Or any obligation at all. My personal opinion is that if you have the ability to create life, you have an obligation to not make it less potentially powerful than yourself, for doing so would essentially create a slave.
I also disagree that creating a being less powerful than oneself is creating a slave. As long as the less powerful being is free to do things other than what the creator wants them to do (if they so choose), they are not slaves. Again, you focus on freedom being about power, whereas I think it is about choice. (Or, if we were to attempt to reconcile freedom and power in some way, one could say it's about not being prevented from exercising whatever power one has in the way that one chooses.) In the case of an omnipotent creator (which we don't know that the Creator is, if he even exists), this is particularly true, since my omnipotence is not compatible with your omnipotence, unless we are already constructed to always want and choose compatible things, in which case we can already see a restriction that does not combine logically.
Edit:
I agree with you that the religious ambiguity of the DA setting is one of the things that makes it compelling.
At least we do agree on one point. 
Hardly. For instance, I can choose to eat cereal with or without milk; neither choice is destructive, and neither would be prevented.There's infinite room for freedom of choice even if nothing would ever be gained by choosing destruction. Removing some options would never remove them all.
Your choice to eat cereal with our without milk is a superficial (if pleasurable), non-moral choice that does not involve other people. When acting in the world in a way that can affect other people, however, you would be forced to never do anything that could affect them negatively. I don't see how this is logically possible. What if they want you to give them something freely that you don't want to give? What if they would feel hurt if you didn't?
Of course, you might say that you wouldn't be forced to do something positive; the restriction would only prevent you doing something negative. Non-action, i.e. neutrality, would thus be an option. However, this is inconsistent with what you say about the Maker below, where you hold him responsible for non-action in not stopping the magisters.
Thus meaning that the Maker is guilty for every single Blight.
Personally, I think that the slave-murdering magisters are guilty, but neither of us has all the information to make a proper judgement.
Anyway, I get the impression that neither of us is likely to change the other's views, but thank you very much for the discussion. Thanks to Ieldra as well. I must be away to get some other things done, so I've no idea when I might reply again.
Retour en haut