Like Rome didn't also spend hundreds of years raping, murdering and pillaging? Destroying entire nations because they wanted to remain themselves, and not become Roman? Enthroning Emperors to whom the cult of personality was the breath of life? They inflicted the very things you hold up as a consequence of their destruction on the population of most of the known world, and you think this makes them better than the alternative? My own people had rules that were far more fair and equitable, including the legal equality of men and women, but the Romans didn't like that, so they sent the legions in to make sure women were relegated to their proper place, among other things. They heard rumours of a nation with vast supplies of gold, so they killed every man, woman and child to get a hold of it. Those nations that fell into 'ignorance' at the fall of Rome would have been fine, had Rome left them alone in the first place - 'free of Roman influence' does not equate to 'ignorance'. Unless you're Roman, of course! Rome? I spit on it!
As for the Chantry? Kill. It. With. Fire. The small goods they might do don't make up for the larger injustices they perpetrate. So either destroy it totally, or reduce it to the point where it cannot influence more than the followers making up individual parishes.
And yet the world would be unrecognizable without them, and ultimately worse off. Just as Thedas would likely be worse off without the Chantry.





Retour en haut





