881 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

No. He starts supporting coming to a compromise. He mentions talking to Elthina. (which then begs the question why he didn't start with that because it's not like he was going to be arrested anyway given everyone and their mother knows he's an apostate.)

 

You get a final conversation in the rivalry where he pretty much admits he's going about what he's doing in a crappy way then Justice interrupts and pretty much shows him he's then made a huge mistake and Hawke can point out that he can't even control himself anymore. He wants to try to fix it but he obviously fails given the bomb goes off.

 

 

The whole "if I die maybe he'll be free then." bit? True but that's him being suicidal because he sees what he's morphed Justice into.

 

Again this remains constant if you side with the templars with his rivaled self (he admits to not knowing how long he can hold vengeance back and is heavily suicidal) yet vanishes on the mage route. (Instead you get that MAGE FREEDOM RAR bit which makes no sense given the earlier rivalry conversations about compromising).

 

Edit: There's no mention of Vengeance being an overzealous threat either. (thus my BFF remark).

 

As it is if I want consistency if I'm siding with the mages after rivaling him I just kill him.
 

 

I've always viewed the Friendship routes in DA2 as pardoning and even enabling the companion's dysfunctions because you happen to agree with them- the character development analog to 'it's not a bug, it's a feature!'

 

People frequently dislike the rivalry paths because few people like being confrontational, but one of the big themes of the rivalry arcs is confronting the companions on character failings and weaknesses that they'd never confront if you simply agreed with them. Making Aveline confront her less-than-lawful attitudes, Isabella's selfishness, Fenris and his mage PTSD...

 

As for Anders, there's a lot of signs and indicators of an increasingly severe mental illness and personality disorder as the game goes on. Some people... just like where it takes him, and don't see it as a flaw.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

At least people aren't trying to out-condescend each other.  That's a plus.

 

Challenge accepted.

 

Er, I mean,

 

 

'Game on, -insert insult-!'
 

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

 

As for Anders, there's a lot of signs and indicators of an increasingly severe mental illness and personality disorder as the game goes on. Some people... just like where it takes him, and don't see it as a flaw.

 

 

Kind of scary that people are willing to cheer on someone they claim to like as they spiral further and further downwards  just because they want him to blow up an old woman and start a war.

[TTTX]

Kind of scary that people are willing to cheer on someone they claim to like as they spiral further and further downwards  just because they want him to blow up an old woman and start a war.

Not the first time that has happened in human history.

[Ieldra]

I've always viewed the Friendship routes in DA2 as pardoning and even enabling the companion's dysfunctions because you happen to agree with them- the character development analog to 'it's not a bug, it's a feature!'

 

People frequently dislike the rivalry paths because few people like being confrontational, but one of the big themes of the rivalry arcs is confronting the companions on character failings and weaknesses that they'd never confront if you simply agreed with them. Making Aveline confront her less-than-lawful attitudes, Isabella's selfishness, Fenris and his mage PTSD...

 

As for Anders, there's a lot of signs and indicators of an increasingly severe mental illness and personality disorder as the game goes on. Some people... just like where it takes him, and don't see it as a flaw.

 

You do have a point, but it's a little more complicated than that. For instance, Isabela comes around on her own on the friendship path, and she's actually not nearly as selfish as she claims to be to begin with.

 

Then we have Merrill. What is her story about? While you can certainly take up different positions regarding her use of blood magic and whether it's worth uncovering the eluvian's secrets, I honestly don't think any of the outcomes of her story can be blamed on her. Merrill was ready to risk herself and even asks Hawke to kill her should something go wrong in Act 3. She was prepared to take the consequences and never asked for another to interfere on her behalf. The clan's level of prejudice was stupid to start with, and Marethari's decisions were her own. Regardless of where I stand in the matter of blood magic and the eluvian, the outcome was more the clan's and Marethari's fault than Merrill's. That makes me more inclined to say "OK, I may not exactly agree with what you're doing here, but it's your choice to make and I'm your friend, so I'll go along with it" and stay on the friendship path.

 

Anders presents the opposite picture: you may or may not agree with the mage revolution and Anders' methods to start it, but the way it comes about, the way Anders acts, is troubling and, as you say, indicates mental instability regardless. So you may be motivated into the rivalry path regardless.

[Ieldra]

You don't think it is morally objectionable to steal? 

Stealing knowledge does not deprive the targets of it, and it's also not the result of a creative act someone could lay claim to as their work.

 

And stealing secrets? That depends on whether you believe anyone has the moral right to keep knowledge about the world secret. I certainly don't. I think there is a moral obligation to make such knowledge available to everyone, limited only by pragmatic concerns about its use.

[Wolfen09]

to answer the title of this thread, (cause im too lazy to go read all the biased comments) its because the person who came up with this thread thinks its evil.... i dont really frickin care as the chantry has very little to do with the story which is closing the breaches to save the world... not save the world from the chantry

[Xiltas]

So, no source then? 

The Exalted Marches?

[Helios969]

Sorry. Me try to use easy words for big ideas.

Please do:)

[NasChoka]

Source?

I found this
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Rivain

"After 7:84 Storm: The Chantry and nationalist forces of Rivain, unable to convert its people back to the worship of the Maker, try a purge by the sword, slaughtering countless unarmed people and burying them in mass graves.[5]"

[Seraphim24]

Making Aveline confront her less-than-lawful attitudes,

 

It's too bad you can't confront her more-than-lawful attitudes.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Stealing knowledge does not deprive the targets of it, and it's also not the result of a creative act someone could lay claim to as their work.

 

And stealing secrets? That depends on whether you believe anyone has the moral right to keep knowledge about the world secret. I certainly don't. I think there is a moral obligation to make such knowledge available to everyone, limited only by pragmatic concerns about its use.

In our day and age of information, I hope you realize you just semi-approved information theft. Stealing information can be a very serious crime, and an invasion of privacy.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Also, not all religions actually involve proselytizing as part of their doctrine, let alone something as extreme as the Chantry.

There is ONE of the major religions on Earth, that doesn't directly command its followers to attempt to convert a non-believer when they encounter him. That is Judaism.

 

Now of course, this divine command to attempt to covnert is largely ignored in our day and age, but it is right there in the holy scriptures of Chrstianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam.

[KoorahUK]

I found this
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Rivain

"After 7:84 Storm: The Chantry and nationalist forces of Rivain, unable to convert its people back to the worship of the Maker, try a purge by the sword, slaughtering countless unarmed people and burying them in mass graves.[5]"

So this was after the conquest by the Qunari, which was pushed back by the Exhaulted Marches. This isn't evidence of aggressive expansion, this is The Chantry assisting the Rivians in stamping out what they saw as heretical beliefs in what was once Andrastian lands. 

This sort of slaughter is terrible, no one is denying that, but it a single example in a more compelx historical context and is not evidence that the Chantry itself is an evil organisation, not that it propogates an aggressive expansion policy through systemic violence and conquest. That is simply not supported.

[Xilizhra]

I would argue that a religion that does not base itself on conversion lacks strong principles. What does it say about a belief system if the people within that system don't consider people outside the faith worth the effort of conversion? It is a unique aspect of monotheistic faiths. If you truly believe that there is only one god, then ALL other religions are false. And if this is true, then converting people means you are saving them from a Hellish fate. Since religion involves such important aspects as one's very soul, what kind of monster would you have to be to consider everyone outside of your religion not worth saving? I don't advocate conversion by the sword, but conversion is a necessary aspect of every strong faith. No faith that ignores those outside its congregation is worth my time.

 

Hence why the Elven Pantheon and Stone Worship are weak and unworthy religions, in my view. They ignore the outside world. The Dalish don't really care what happens to the dwarven souls or humans. The dwarves don't care about the elves or the humans. Andrastians, however, show a great propensity to at least give a **** about races other than their own. Yes, humans are racist(Cue Mass Effect turian quotes), but at least some of them will care enough about the dwarves and the elves to try and help them save their souls. Even if they are wrong, they still care.

 

That is why the only religion(in Thedas) that holds a candle to Andrastianism, IMO, is the Qun. And the Qun is a very ba----nope, not going on the tangent. Suffice to say, I despise it. But at least the Qun cares about those outside the faith, even if it is in a different way than Andrastianism.

Er... no. All it means is that you don't consider your own religion the only way to go for everyone. A religion that happens to be inclusive, as opposed to exclusive.

[dragonflight288]

So, no source then? 

 

The Llmarryn Accord. Northern Rivain converted peacefully to the Qun. When the Qunari left, the Llmarryn Accord dictated that all the Qunari leave, but it was violated by those born in Rivain who refused to leave their homes who happened to be converted to the Qun. 

 

The Chantry forces in Rivain, unable to convert them back, put them to the sword in an Exalted March, thus violating the treaty themselves, and the death and devastation was so great that the veil was sundered. Then the Chantry denied doing the attack. 

 

This is all in the codex the Llmarryn Accord. 

 

As for the bit on the Dales. I dislike how the people who take one side of the story as gospel truth and completely ignore the story from the other side, the case being that the Dales attacked unprovoked, and they are the ones at fault. There is no lore at all on how that particular war got started, only that the Elves attacked Red Crossing, and the elves had apparently been visited by templars after they kicked out missionaries. That's all the lore there is on the start of that war. 

 

If both sides are true, then that would mean that the Chantry, or at least some chantry forces, tried to force conversion upon the elves of the Dales when it wasn't happening willingly, and if those templars came from Red Crossing, it could have been those templars that provoked the elves and thus started the war. There is no evidence to support this theory, but neither is there any evidence to support that the elves are fully responsible for that war either. 

[Ieldra]

In our day and age of information, I hope you realize you just semi-approved information theft. Stealing information can be a very serious crime, and an invasion of privacy.

I knew I shouldn't have tried to keep things simple. I was mainly talking about knowledge about how the world works, basically scientific knowledge, not the things people keep in their computers about their personal lives. About the former, I do indeed believe that nobody has the moral right to keep it secret and approve foiling attempts to do so. There is a grey zone for technological processes like "how to build x", where it's necessary that some things are kept secret in order to let the inventor profit from them. That's what we have patents for, and I do approve of those, but only on a temporary basis and only for technological processes and inventions actually created by someone. Fundamentally I believe such knowledge belongs to all of humanity.

 

All right, I think that was enough OT for now. These things can get complex if we go deeper, and I'm disinclined to do that here.

[dragonflight288]

So this was after the conquest by the Qunari, which was pushed back by the Exhaulted Marches. This isn't evidence of aggressive expansion, this is The Chantry assisting the Rivians in stamping out what they saw as heretical beliefs in what was once Andrastian lands. 

This sort of slaughter is terrible, no one is denying that, but it a single example in a more compelx historical context and is not evidence that the Chantry itself is an evil organisation, not that it propogates an aggressive expansion policy through systemic violence and conquest. That is simply not supported.

 

The slaughter was motivated by an inability to convert them back to the worship of the Maker in the Chantry. 

[Keroko]

So this was after the conquest by the Qunari, which was pushed back by the Exhaulted Marches. This isn't evidence of aggressive expansion, this is The Chantry assisting the Rivians in stamping out what they saw as heretical beliefs in what was once Andrastian lands. 

This sort of slaughter is terrible, no one is denying that, but it a single example in a more compelx historical context and is not evidence that the Chantry itself is an evil organisation, not that it propogates an aggressive expansion policy through systemic violence and conquest. That is simply not supported.

If you put both elven and Chantry historical accounts next to one another, the march against the Dales becomes less a defence against an entirely unprovoked attack, and more a cunning war instigated by the Chantry so they could conquer the elves and be cheered on while doing so.

The four marches against Tevinter were done because the Imperial Chantry had reinterpreted several of the Chant's edicts. The Black Age is called so exactly because the new Divine called for divine retribution against the Imperial Chantry after they *ahem* not so subtly celebrated the death of the previous White Divine.

[KoorahUK]

The slaughter was motivated by an inability to convert them back to the worship of the Maker in the Chantry. 

Indeed, and I am not disputing that, but that does not prove that the Chantry as a body has a systemic policy of violent and forceable conversion which is the claim being made. It proves that at one point in history The Chantry did terrible deeds because they could not revert - not convert - one group of people. They believed them lost to the corruption of the Qun. 

At a different time and with different leadership, that likely would not have happened, and that is because forcible conversion is not Chantry law or policy.

[KoorahUK]

If you put both elven and Chantry historical accounts next to one another, the march against the Dales becomes less a defence against an entirely unprovoked attack, and more a cunning war instigated by the Chantry so they could conquer the elves and be cheered on while doing so.
 

So its a glorified case of "he said / she said" then? Not sure that supports anyone's argument other than the one we favour.

 

The four marches against Tevinter were done because the Imperial Chantry had reinterpreted several of the Chant's edicts. The Black Age is called so exactly because the new Divine called for divine retribution against the Imperial Chantry after they *ahem* not so subtly celebrated the death of the previous White Divine.

Indeed. One flavour of Andrastian's made war on another flavour of Andrastian's. This is no different from any nation declaring war on any other for perceived slights, trade disputes or just plain animosity.

None of this prove the Chantry is evil, just that they didnt see the funny side of Tevinter trolling.

[Steelcan]

If you put both elven and Chantry historical accounts next to one another, the march against the Dales becomes less a defence against an entirely unprovoked attack, and more a cunning war instigated by the Chantry so they could conquer the elves and be cheered on while doing so.
 

if you put the two accounts next to each other, then examine what happened afterwards with the Dalish attacks on Red Crossing and subsequent march on Val Royeaux you see the elves being very aggressive.

 

Even if the Dalish account is accurate and templars were being sent into Dalish lands, it does not justify an invasion of Orlais.

[TheJediSaint]

if you put the two accounts next to each other, then examine what happened afterwards with the Dalish attacks on Red Crossing and subsequent march on Val Royeaux you see the elves being very aggressive.

 

Even if the Dalish account is accurate and templars were being sent into Dalish lands, it does not justify an invasion of Orlais.

Hey, there are few things in Civilization more annoying that Missionary spammers.

[Br3admax]

The slaughter was motivated by an inability to convert them back to the worship of the Maker in the Chantry. 

Um, no. Rising tensions on both sides led to a Dalish invasion. 

[Br3admax]

*snip*

Literally none of these examples had to do with spreading the Chant from the Chantry. Seriously. The Chantry retaliating to violence is not the Chantry being aggressive.