114 réponses à ce sujet

[Doominike]

I remember trolling wynne by acting childish, was pretty fun. 

[SwobyJ]

Powerful religious organizations rarely face the consequences of the crimes that they commit. The church has been hounded recently by the United Nations, for its systematic covering up of child rape. However the UN will (I think) never act upon the evidence it has gathered unless it gets public support. The church currently maintains power because of the passivity of the people.  The 'PC' status quo Left (as Orwell once called them) is the guiltiest of this, as they make excuses like, “oh well we would not want to OFFENED people by questioning their religion” thus obfuscating what is in front of their very noses, and letting the church carry on with its machinations.

 

 

Hate to get all political here, but I've seen problems of both the left and right.

 

The left can be, as you said, excusing of religions and hesitant to offend. More focus on making a harmonious society of many viewpoints and types of people, that actually objectionable behavior becomes increasingly permitted when not properly policed.

 

The (current, general/national) right however, more likely has people who are the actual members of the churches. (In a different time I'd put the religious more generally on the 'left', but that place has been taken up by the secular State in various forms, leaving the religious to often collect on the Right 'wide tent' on the side of traditionalism and relatively personally-sensed freedom,)

 

If there was 'no Right', the Left would just let injustices slide by without even discussion, let alone alarm, just because the injustices are happening as part of their system/consensus. If there was 'no Left', the Right wouldn't budge from their viewpoints even if those viewpoints were utterly stupid, just because their viewpoints 'are their own/culture/traditions/opinion'.

Thankfully, we life in a world with left and right and up and down and everything else, so these hypothetical examples don't happen, except as a conceptual model.

 

 

In the DA world though, where religion (until we face the Qun) often dominates power and discourse outright, I think it is more like left = work with the Chantry and right = resist the Chantry, given that religion more overtly composes the current power structure that you can have relations and partnerships with.

 

You probably have to make the choice whether to accept the Chantry for what it is, and have greater access to their power and influence (their 'system'), or reject the Chantry and forge your (relatively) own path, and have less access to their power and influence (at least at first).

 

I'll be going for the latter. I considered the Chantry broken from the start. Heck, I think of Andraste to actually be an earlier form of Flemeth through various reincarnations, and the Chantry to be a strategic lie (even if Andraste believed in her cause at the time, and technically never actually lied to followers fromacertainpointofview). But we'll see.

[Senya]

I remember trolling wynne by acting childish, was pretty fun.

Lol. You too?

[SwobyJ]

Well a stream revealed one major way we could damage the chantry:

 

Spoiler

A stream of Cassandra's companion quest revealed that Seekers gain their power by being made tranquil and summoning a spirit of faith to cure them which gives them their powers. Cassandra learns this and finds out only Lord Seekers knew this which means the rest of the Seekers, Chantry, and the Templars never knew about this. Cassandra then has a crisis of faith and asks what she should do with this: reform the seekers by sharing that method of gaining seeker powers to everyone, disbanding the seeker order entirely, or allowing Cassandra to decide.

 

That is AWESOME. And would explain why Seekers kept to such few numbers.

[KaiserShep]

I remember trolling wynne by acting childish, was pretty fun. 

 

Griffins?

[Doominike]

Yay griffins !

[herkles]

I at no point called religious people evil, not once ( I was highly critical of despotic theocrats); I was very clear in separating religon and the religious "People, there is a difference between hating doctrine, the religion itself, and hating the religious as people. The former is perfectly fine (in this sense we are talking about mere injunctions, ideas and stories), the later is clearly morally unscrupulous. It seems that people have to some extent conflated criticism of religion, with attacking the religious as people—such conflation is itself intellectually unprincipled, as it is a form of straw man." A straw man that you have just committed, and should apologize for.

 In my post (on the previous page), you will see that I support religious pluralism, the only way to truly do so is by having a state that is free from the monastic notions of one religion. The secular state in fact allows for religious liberty, look at the United Staes constitution, and look at the religious diversity in American society.  

I have in no way made an association fallacy. I gave specific examples of harmful doctrine, i.e. the Catholic Churches inane policy on condom use. If you want to argue that religion, especially the Catholic Church does not have backwards doctrine, then explain how the aforementioned is not backwards and harmful. How about you explain how the church’s support of Fascism during WWII was not harmful, and backwards. Why don’t you show real evidence of the existence of a Christian God--instead of running to the Bible, circular logic, and confirmation bias? Explain how the concept of hell, an eternity of torture is not an evil concept, especially when it is used to terrify children

Explain how the church’s covering up of child rape was not wrong. Explain how the theocratic kangaroo courts of Pakistan, when they sentence women to be raped and stoned to death, are not backwards and wrong. Religions come from the bawling and mewling infancy of our species, before we had a theory of evolution, before we had so much as a germ theory of disease (etc) and it shows.

Your attempt at defaming what I have written is intellectually corrupt, and you should apologize.

 

 

a few things.

 

What I did say or was trying to say is that religion can be a force for good, helping the world, and decressing world suck as it can be the opposite. Do I agree with all the things you listed, of course not. I never said that. Yet, to focus only on the negative ignores the postivie. Religion like many things is neutral, it imo isn't what you believe but what you do that is important.  It can motivate people to do just what you said, but it can motivate other people to do the opposite.

 

I also never said anything about being anti-secularisim. I am supportive of that, and as I stated when I said I was a practioner of Hellenismos or greek polytheism, I am not christian or even a monotheist. To me, religious pluralism goes hand in hand with secularism, and I strongly support that. 

 

 

To get us back on track. Apparently according to Lulupab you do get the chance to oppose the andrastian chantry which is good IMO. I want options, as while my first quizzy is a devoted member of the chantry, but as a roleplayer my other characters are not going to be such. my dalish won't be for one thing. She will be a supporter of the old elven ways. 

 

I do wonder if we could support the tevinter chantry?

[Andres Hendrix]

He/She said she wasn't Christian. And demanding an apology for arguing with you is rubbish, intellectual bullying, even if you feel what you wrote was misrepresented in their response. Now stop bringing this thread off-topic or go find someone willing to argue with you or I will report you for hijacking a thread and violating this forum's rules of conduct.

Please review the rules: http://forum.bioware...c/3-site-rules/

My main post was concerning putting my own beliefs into perspective, to show my reasoning behind what I would want my Inquisitor to do if faced with forming a state (Though I was doubtful that such a mechanic exists in the game),and, how opposed I would want my inquisitor to be to the chantry.

One emotional claim made by said person was that they do not like how religions are said to be 'backwards,' and that it was not right to do so. I gave particular examples of abhorrent actions undertaken by theocratic groups, and asked he-or she to explain how they are not abhorrent and backwards. Then I asked he or she to show real evidence (as in using the inductive method of science a very progressive force in society) instead of simply running to the bible to prove the existence of Christian God. A specific tactic a Christen would use (Something that I think they would consider illogical, at least if done by someone else) ,and one that said person should be opposed to (on principal) if they in fact believe in the Greek Gods.
 

I was not expecting to be so underhandedly called a bigot. If said person is going to accuse me of an association fallacy (essentially calling me a bigot) they should give a specific example in my writing, instead of saying that I called all religious people evil. Since I did not, and they gave no proof that I did, then an apology would be in order. Report me if you want; Whoop-de-do.

[Andres Hendrix]

@swobyj

I agree, and I do think that the politcal right is a problem as well.
 

 

[Doominike]

Politics period is a problem

[herkles]

Politics period is a problem

though on the other hand it does create for interesting drama and stories  

 

but IRL it tends to be necessary, sucky but necessary. 

[Andres Hendrix]

@herkles
 

Show and prove where I said that all religious people are evil, I in fact agree with the concept of a pluralistic society. It is unfair of you to essentially call me a bigot. I do not agree that religions in the real world can be true forces for good. However, I do not think that every religious doctrine is evil. I have never said such.

[Doominike]

though on the other hand it does create for interesting drama and stories

 

but IRL it tends to be necessary, sucky but necessary. 

In stories totally. As for IRL, I meant politics as they are now obviously. A tyranny/dictatorship with me as the ruler would be politics too but I think it'd be awesome

[SwobyJ]

Politics. Of the people.

 

People talking about people doing people things is politics. Polis.

 

You can't get away from it even if you keep trying to avoid the more civil parts of it.

 

"This is not a political forum, end of line." XD

 

I'm done anyway

[LobselVith8]

Based on what I have seen you will not be disappointed. The quizy can be quite the troll. 

 

You seem to have played the early access of Inquisition already. If this is the case, I was wondering if I could pick your brain a bit. Can you share how it feels to play as an elven Inquisitor so far? I'd like to play as a follower of the Creators, as well as someone who will be wary of the (former) Chantry members who comprise the newfound Inquisition and keeps them at arm's length, given the hostilities that have arisen between the two groups for centuries. Is this possible, or is the main character restricted to playing it a certain way?

[LordParbr]

Unless you're playing as a character who is a member of an ethnic group that has been a target of this organization for centuries, in which case it's a matter of personal opinion that any dealings with the Chantry of Andraste are not a good idea.

Nope, it's still stupid to burn bridges when you need all the allies you can get.

[earl of the north]

Nope, it's still stupid to burn bridges when you need all the allies you can get.

I agree....it seems amazingly foolish to me for the Inquisitior (especially humans) to be anti an organisation that the majority of your membership are also members off, lets not forgot your likely to primarily recruiting from Fereldan and Orlais, being anti Chantry should make the game harder since your attacking probably the last constant in many of the population's daily lives, especially in Orlais, where you have the mage/templar conflict and the civil war never mind the rifts.

 

A Dalish elf would in all probably be anti Chantry, not least because the Dalish are lets face it racists toward everybody that isn't Dalish including other Elves and I believe its been stated elves will have a harder job dealing with the political side (with the Qunari having the hardest job). So i'm saving my elf and qunari playthroughs for later after I've done a human and dwarf playthrough.

 

My first instinct in the situation we find ourselves at the start of the game is to get them on side so we can make use of the Chantry for money, resources  and preaching to largely pro-Chantry population how great an idea we are and use them to boost recuitment to the Inquisition, personal feelings aside they are simply to valuable an asset to throw away.

[Applepie_Svk]

Like the hell if I should help any one of those 3 factions ...  

 

Mages - Uh dude, we are always opressed, templars are watching and if they don´t, they still listening, and if they are not watching nor listening, they are always thinking in a way of killing us, but we ? We are just fine, none of us ever ever touched a forbiden magic, nor we wield a power who may kill or harm other people, nor we are in everyday challange to not become posessed by som deamon.

 

Templars - Dude, those mages, awful bunch of morons, each time just thinking about escaping and summoning some demons or preparing for return of the Tevinter. Ofc we are right ! Just revered mother will bring us, some good lyrium stuff and we can kick some mage butts. 

 

Chantry - Magic is here to serve man and never to rule over him... but chantry has a permission to rule over it ! to control it ! to eliminate it ! and  they do use for it addicts in plate armor, from which some can be corrupted by the power given to them.

 

The bottom line is that none of the sides is right and each one of them has its own truth which may be true at some level, but that does not give them ultimately right to do of what they are and were doing for few past centuries, nor right to ask for more or ask for status quo.

[LobselVith8]

I agree....it seems amazingly foolish to me for the Inquisitior (especially humans) to be anti an organisation that the majority of your membership are also members off, lets not forgot your likely to primarily recruiting from Fereldan and Orlais, being anti Chantry should make the game harder since your attacking probably the last constant in many of the population's daily lives, especially in Orlais, where you have the mage/templar conflict and the civil war never mind the rifts.

 

I don't think it's foolish for people to play their characters differently than you do; I also don't think it's stupid. A character from one of the Dalish clans, or one of the Circles, has amble reason not to trust the Chantry of Andraste. Not everyone views the organization the same way that you do, and it's a little tiresome at this point that anyone has to defend their choice to play as a character who doesn't trust the Andrastian Chantry.

 

A Dalish elf would in all probably be anti Chantry, not least because the Dalish are lets face it racists toward everybody that isn't Dalish including other Elves and I believe its been stated elves will have a harder job dealing with the political side (with the Qunari having the hardest job). So i'm saving my elf and qunari playthroughs for later after I've done a human and dwarf playthrough.

 

The Dalish, in general, are apprehensive towards outsiders because outsiders are constantly a threat to them. Human lords or lynch mobs drive them off the land when they stay too long in one area, templars pursue them for their mages, and some Andrastians threaten them to convert (as the Sabrae Clan experienced in Sundermount). Being apprehensive isn't the same thing as being racist, and we've met a plethora of Dalish who didn't take issue with non-Dalish, like Elora, Cammen, Gheyna, Aneirin, Merrill, el ect.

 

My first instinct in the situation we find ourselves at the start of the game is to get them on side so we can make use of the Chantry for money, resources  and preaching to largely pro-Chantry population how great an idea we are and use them to boost recuitment to the Inquisition, personal feelings aside they are simply to valuable an asset to throw away.

 

You're more than welcome to play as a pro-Chantry Inquisitor, although I'm pretty sure this thread is about playing as a character who opposes the Chantry of Andraste.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I don't think it's foolish for people to play their characters differently than you do; I also don't think it's stupid. A character from one of the Dalish clans, or one of the Circles, has amble reason not to trust the Chantry of Andraste. Not everyone views the organization the same way that you do, and it's a little tiresome at this point that anyone has to defend their choice to play as a character who doesn't trust the Andrastian Chantry.

 

 

The Dalish, in general, are apprehensive towards outsiders because outsiders are constantly a threat to them. Human lords or lynch mobs drive them off the land when they stay too long in one area, templars pursue them for their mages, and some Andrastians threaten them to convert (as the Sabrae Clan experienced in Sundermount). Being apprehensive isn't the same thing as being racist, and we've met a plethora of Dalish who didn't take issue with non-Dalish, like Elora, Cammen, Gheyna, Aneirin, Merrill, el ect.

 

 

You're more than welcome to play as a pro-Chantry Inquisitor, although I'm pretty sure this thread is about playing as a character who opposes the Chantry of Andraste.

 

Because this isn't only about taking a moral stand and damn the rest. You need the Chantry, or least you don't want to oppose it directly since you're going to be entirely operating in territory where the people follow it. The Inquisition needs to be trusted if it is to work, and that means not constantly butting heads with the land's majority religion.

 

By some reports I saw, you can take stances and policies that don't favor the Chantry, so that's plenty room for RP options. But if you expect to storm Val Royaux and disband the entire Chantry or something because you don't like them, I'm fairly certain you will be dissapointed.

[earl of the north]

I don't think it's foolish for people to play their characters differently than you do; I also don't think it's stupid. A character from one of the Dalish clans, or one of the Circles, has amble reason not to trust the Chantry of Andraste. Not everyone views the organization the same way that you do, and it's a little tiresome at this point that anyone has to defend their choice to play as a character who doesn't trust the Andrastian Chantry.

 

 

Did I say it was foolish for people to play their character differently than me?

 

I said it was foolish for the someone in the Inquisitior position to follow an anti Chantry course and it is, as I mentioned your playing in the heartland of Chantry support, its foolish to throw away one of the main pillars of the Andrastian culture and  a real life Inquisitor would be in a much weaker position following a anti Chantry course rather than a pro or netural stance.

 

As the player we are free to follow any course we want, within the limitations of the game but it doesn't make it the smartest choice in a real world situation.

 

 

 

The Dalish, in general, are apprehensive towards outsiders because outsiders are constantly a threat to them. Human lords or lynch mobs drive them off the land when they stay too long in one area, templars pursue them for their mages, and some Andrastians threaten them to convert (as the Sabrae Clan experienced in Sundermount). Being apprehensive isn't the same thing as being racist, and we've met a plethora of Dalish who didn't take issue with non-Dalish, like Elora, Cammen, Gheyna, Aneirin, Merrill, el ect.

 

The Dalish have a history of abuse by humans (Tevinter mages especially) but they also have a history of abusing humans including murdering unarmed humans they come across in 'their' forests and they have a well recorded history of racist ideals, their belief in their own 'Elven' purity, their abandonment over the majority of the elven population (and their racists views about them) and the belief in their own racial superiority over humans, dwarfs, city elves etc.

 

While some Dalish Clans are moderates (and even in a moderate clan the killing of unarmed humans is apparently okay behaviour) others are not and have been shown not to be (in the recent novel 'The Masked Empire').

 

 

You're more than welcome to play as a pro-Chantry Inquisitor, although I'm pretty sure this thread is about playing as a character who opposes the Chantry of Andraste.

 

Why thank you, but I will be playing as pro, neutral and anti Chantry Inquisitors as I have played pro, neutral and anti Mages/Templar supporters in the other games.

[LordParbr]

I don't think it's foolish for people to play their characters differently than you do; I also don't think it's stupid. A character from one of the Dalish clans, or one of the Circles, has amble reason not to trust the Chantry of Andraste. Not everyone views the organization the same way that you do, and it's a little tiresome at this point that anyone has to defend their choice to play as a character who doesn't trust the Andrastian Chantry.

 

 

The Dalish, in general, are apprehensive towards outsiders because outsiders are constantly a threat to them. Human lords or lynch mobs drive them off the land when they stay too long in one area, templars pursue them for their mages, and some Andrastians threaten them to convert (as the Sabrae Clan experienced in Sundermount). Being apprehensive isn't the same thing as being racist, and we've met a plethora of Dalish who didn't take issue with non-Dalish, like Elora, Cammen, Gheyna, Aneirin, Merrill, el ect.

 

 

You're more than welcome to play as a pro-Chantry Inquisitor, although I'm pretty sure this thread is about playing as a character who opposes the Chantry of Andraste.

It isn't a matter of opinion or pro/anti-Chantry. I'm anti-chantry. It's objectively stupid to start burning bridges when demons are invading Thedas. You run the risk of allowing demons and other fade entities running rampant with no one to oppose them because no one who worships the Maker or Andraste supports the Inquisition anymore, because it's run by a petty, anti-Chantry knife-ear who can't put aside their prejudices for 5 minutes. So it falls because it lacks the forces it needs to combat the demons, and Thedas is destroyed.

[LobselVith8]

Did I say it was foolish for people to play their character differently than me?

 

I said it was foolish for the someone in the Inquisitior position to follow an anti Chantry course and it is, as I mentioned your playing in the heartland of Chantry support, its foolish to throw away one of the main pillars of the Andrastian culture and  a real life Inquisitor would be in a much weaker position following a anti Chantry course rather than a pro or netural stance.

 

The Andrastian Chantry has no military power (in fact, either the rogue templars or the rebel mages can become part of the Inquisition's militant arm), and the Inquisitor is being viewed as a religious figure by many people.

 

There's nothing foolish or stupid about the Inquisitor feeling as though the Chantry isn't a worthwhile ally. If the Inquisitor is a Dalish elf who follows a religion and culture that's been outlawed by the Chantry, or is a Circle mage who wants autonomy for the Circles of Magi and fair treatment for people who can use magic, then there are a plethora of reasons already why the main character wouldn't want to work with an organization that criminalizes and vilifies people like the protagonist. There's also no evidence indicating that the Chantry is necessary for victory, so I'm not seeing how it's foolish to refrain from allying with the Chantry of Andraste. In fact, there's been evidence that shows that the Inquisitor can oppose the Chantry and the Seekers.

 

As the player we are free to follow any course we want, doesn't make it the smartest choice in a real world.

 

Our choices are determined by our views and our opinions. There's also a stark difference between opinion and fact. Your opinion of the Chantry isn't one that's shared by everyone here, and conflating your opinion for fact is the primary problem I have with people like you in this thread who act as though it's wrong or "stupid" for people not to ally with the Chantry.

 

The Dalish have a history of abuse by humans (Tevinter mages especially) but they also have a history of abusing humans including murdering unarmed humans they come across in 'their' forests and they have a well recorded history of racist ideals, their belief in their own 'Elven' purity, their abandonment over the majority of the elven population and the belief in their own racial superiority over humans, dwarfs, city elves etc.

 

Technically, the lore reads that most clans have a history of wanting to be left anyone. I also disagree with your notion of racial purity. You're equating the idea of biologically-motivated racial preserving with an ethnocentric sense of racial purity, which isn't the same thing. Saying "We must preserve the white race because it is better than the brown people so no white people can have children with brown people" is radically different from saying "If elves don't have children with elves, elves will physically cease to exist forever as a species".

[Br3admax]

You do realise the inquisition won't permanently be this powerful, yes? Most of the companions plan to go back to their old lives afterwards. I assume a lot of the soldiers feel the same. They except the Inquisitor because of his/her connection to Andraste. I think they like their old faiths just fine. 

[LobselVith8]

You do realise the inquisition won't permanently be this powerful, yes? Most of the companions plan to go back to their old lives afterwards. I assume a lot of the soldiers feel the same. 

 

I take it we're addressing your speculation on the matter now, since it's addressed that some speculate in-game that the Inquisition will continue after the crisis with the Breach.