That's not what a Faith vs Freedom false dichotomy would explore but yes that is yet another thread that could be used for a different story at some other time.
The fact you are call the Herald of andraste in the game when you're really not show that it's already part of the story.
It's why I said "it's the tragic flaw for me", instead of acting as if I expected others to share my opinion as if it were fact.
I do not agree with your interpretation of how that title is used over the player's head. I see it as a flaw, an imperfection, because it does not share the qualities of its superior predecessors.
And my point is that it's not. I know you don't like it but one of the themes of the game is to point it out. The people with in legend rarely control what that legend will be nor how they are seen though out history after word. Heck, look at Macbeth and how the play about him butchered the real story about him. The fact remains that the people out side of the event and after are going to control how the events are seen not the people with in the events. Another point Flemeth and Solas made. Both are victims of this.
I keep thinking that, like me, the writers must have read this story is some college spanish class or other:
http://en.wikipedia....l_Bueno,_Mártir
The ideas about how religion can improve lives even if you don't believe in it, etc.
This is actually an interesting point.
I felt like BioWare were playing around with the concept of Faith and Freedom being mutually exclusive during the first act or so but that gets thrown out the window for the old "powerful being wishing death upon the world" business which is nowhere near as interesting to me.
Your point has some really interesting ramifications for future sequels and would allow that thread of Faith vs Freedom to be re-examined later.
I think the concept was more a question of "what do you believe in?" given different and sometimes contradictory histories people are presented with.
A good one for example is talking to Mother Giselle about Corypheus. SHe recites lines from the Chant of Light about the magister assault on the Golden City, and the Inquisitor can point out where that lines up with Corypheus' statements and where they diverge.
Same with the Temple of Mythal, demonstrating that the Dalish knowledge of their Creator gods is imperfect at best.
In the end, no one has all the answers. And while the Inquisitor may go down in history as a Chantry figure, he or she does have an impact on the Chantry, whatever the Herald really believes.
The fact you are call the Herald of andraste in the game when you're really not show that it's already part of the story.
You realise there's two parts to a dichotomy yes? DAI drops the freedom issue after the first act like Lindsay Lohan's career.
And my point is that it's not. I know you don't like it but one of the themes of the game is to point it out. The people with in legend rarely control what that legend will be nor how they are seen though out history after word. Heck, look at Macbeth and how the play about him butchered the real story about him. The fact remains that the people out side of the event and after are going to control how the events are seen not the people with in the events. Another point Flemeth and Solas made. Both are victims of this.
Yet my Hero of Fereldan and Champion are not... Not in the sense that the rumors and stories about them are negative or untrue.
I do not disagree with what you see the title to mean; I simply do not like the title and see the others as better for being earned and accurate, which is why I see the "Herald of Andraste" as a step backwards and a flaw.
Feel free to continue to disagree.
I do not think Bioware attempts to contrast faith and freedom. They may have attempted to constrast faith and skepticism, but that didn't make it beyond some roleplaying options for the Inquisitor. NPCs are almost invariably people of faith.
You realise there's two parts to a dichotomy yes? DAI drops the freedom issue after the first act like Lindsay Lohan's career.
So point to me where they made you character only have the choice to say they are Andrastian if you believe that. If you can then you can say that.
I think the concept was more a question of "what do you believe in?" given different and sometimes contradictory histories people are presented with.
A good one for example is talking to Mother Giselle about Corypheus. SHe recites lines from the Chant of Light about the magister assault on the Golden City, and the Inquisitor can point out where that lines up with Corypheus' statements and where they diverge.
Same with the Temple of Mythal, demonstrating that the Dalish knowledge of their Creator gods is imperfect at best.
In the end, no one has all the answers. And while the Inquisitor may go down in history as a Chantry figure, he or she does have an impact on the Chantry, whatever the Herald really believes.
I agree that's where it ended up but just me personally I would have liked something questioning whether faith and freedom can coexist such as was hinted at with the end of DA2.
Not that I'm hugely disappointed with how it turned out just that I felt there was something more to be gleaned from it.
Thinking about the different layers each dominant civilisation has used to understand the world is definitely interesting but in an esoteric pop-philosophy kind of way for me. But that is totally my opinion and no sledging on the actual content...well sorta 
I do not think Bioware attempts to contrast faith and freedom. They may have attempted to constrast faith and skepticism, but that didn't make it beyond some roleplaying options for the Inquisitor. NPCs are almost invariably people of faith.
Yes, but at the same time, NPCs had faith in different things. And even those who believe in the Maker or Andraste have different interpretations of it.
Yet my Hero of Fereldan and Champion are not...
I do not disagree with what you see the title to mean; I simply do not like the title and see the others as better for being earned and accurate, which is why I see the "Herald of Andraste" as a step backwards and a flaw.
Feel free to continue to disagree.
Not a one of them are religious figures and Ironicly they action are being warped by there fame. The champion's tale becomes the biggest fable of thadus over night with people elaborating there action as time goes on. And with the wardens any ill actions they have done is covered up in the name they are to be made to look heroic and washed away under the statement of"Wardens do what they must."
And that flaw about the HoA is one of the flaws of Thadus and the flaws of religion. What the issue about pointing it out?
Regarding the possibility that the truth will be forgotten, that has reminded me of one of the most poignant paraphraphs I ever read in a fantasy story, in one of the Appendices to the Lord of the Rings:
"There at last, when the mallorn leaves were falling, but spring had not yet come, she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth, and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by the men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the sea."
If I read future accounts of the events of DAI, they will likely make me feel similarly sad. If it wasn't apparent until now, I really like my main Inquisitor. None of my other characters in Bioware's games became so real. Only the Warden came very close.
I do not think Bioware attempts to contrast faith and freedom. They may have attempted to constrast faith and skepticism, but that didn't make it beyond some roleplaying options for the Inquisitor. NPCs are almost invariably people of faith.
I would argue there's hints toward it in DAI and DA2 but it's left undeveloped. The Mage-Templar war being an example. The Mages want freedom, the Templars stand behind the Chantry. Can Andrastian's accept a Circle free from the Chantry? This is also present in the different Divines, that's just my interpretation though.
I reserve the right to hold desperately to my erroneous opinions.
I would argue there's hints toward it in DAI and DA2 but it's left undeveloped. The Mage-Templar war being an example. The Mages want freedom, the Templars stand behind the Chantry. Can Andrastian's accept a Circle free from the Chantry? This is also present in the different Divines, that's just my interpretation though.
I reserve the right to hold desperately to my erroneous opinions.
I'd say that's another example "What do you believe in?" The Chantry teaches that "Magic is meant to serve man and not rule him" But what does that mean, exactly? If you talk to Dorian, the Imperial Chantry has a very different interpretation to it than the southern Chantry. ANd of course it goes towards whether or not you believe Fiona and rebels were right to break away, to cut a deal with Alexius, etc.
And of course, VIvienne has a very different view: her own version of "With great power comes great responsibility" And have to consider if she is a reliable source as well.
As for the Templars, well, they didn't stand behind the Chantry. The ones in Therinfal broke away from the Chantry, and what was left is "not enough to call a force" THen we get into questions of whether they were right to do as they did, etc....
Not a one of them are religious figures and Ironicly they action are being warped by there fame. The champion's tale becomes the biggest fable of thadus over night with people elaborating there action as time goes on. And with the wardens any ill actions they have done is covered up in the name they are to be made to look heroic and washed away under the statement of"Wardens do what they must."
And that flaw about the HoA is one of the flaws of Thadus and the flaws of religion. What the issue about pointing it out?
My Hawke welcomed Varric's exaggerations, and the rest of the events were true. The Hero of Fereldan takes a backseat but the accuracy remains intact.
Nothing about "The Herald of Andraste" is true aside from the Inquisitor exiting the fade and closing rifts. Both of which are accidents that are played up for someone else's benefit (Andrastians and their Chantry) whatever the protagonist's stance on the issue.
That is why I see it as a flaw despite knowing what they were trying to do; it was obnoxious and over done.
Like a boy on the playground that pulls your hair and calls you names because he "likes" you.
Given the things your warden can possibly do and gets covered up and brushed aside like defiling Andraste's holy ashes, wiping out a dalish clan, carry out a string of assassinations and a crime wave, allow the blood sacrifice of elves for personal power and be a blood mage amongst other things... That's a lot of white washing. Also keep in mind repeatedly denying something can possibly be seen as affirming it.
I'd say that's another example "What do you believe in?" The Chantry teaches that "Magic is meant to serve man and not rule him" But what does that mean, exactly? If you talk to Dorian, the Imperial Chantry has a very different interpretation to it than the southern Chantry. ANd of course it goes towards whether or not you believe Fiona and rebels were right to break away, to cut a deal with Alexius, etc.
And of course, VIvienne has a very different view: her own version of "With great power comes great responsibility" And have to consider if she is a reliable source as well.
As for the Templars, well, they didn't stand behind the Chantry. The ones in Therinfal broke away from the Chantry, and what was left is "not enough to call a force" THen we get into questions of whether they were right to do as they did, etc....
Dorian does also state that the Chantry in Tevinter is facile in comparison to the Chantry in Orlais and Ferelden. The issue there being Andraste herself.
As for the Templars not supporting the Chantry you are 100% correct which is why I said the Faith vs Freedom thing is dropped after the first act. There are still hints of it throughout but it is left undeveloped.
All that they have to do is create "Origins II".
Mass Effect did it twice; not sure what DA's issue is.
Mass Effect and DA aren't the same game nor are they trying to
You realise there's two parts to a dichotomy yes? DAI drops the freedom issue after the first act like Lindsay Lohan's career.
He argues for the sake of arguing not worth the headache lol
I would have said faith vs. freedom was never the issue given that mages having more freedom was supported by the divine the head of the chantry. The real issue to me was order vs. freedom and how much of each was acceptable with the mages and the Templar leadership taking each to the logical extremes and splinter factions taking the issues to illogical extremes.
He argues for the sake of arguing not worth the headache lol
I wanted to believe the best him though!
I would have said faith vs. freedom was never the issue given that mages having more freedom was supported by the divine the head of the chantry. The real issue to me was order vs. freedom and how much of each was acceptable with the mages and the Templar leadership taking each to the logical extremes and splinter factions taking the issues to illogical extremes.
I like where you're going with this, can you explain your thought process please and throw in some examples?
My Hawke welcomed Varric's exaggerations, and the rest of the events were true. The Hero of Fereldan takes a backseat but the accuracy remains intact.
Nothing about "The Herald of Andraste" is true aside from the Inquisitor exiting the fade and closing rifts. Both of which are accidents that are played up for someone else's benefit (Andrastians and their Chantry) whatever the protagonist's stance on the issue.
That is why I see it as a flaw despite knowing what they were trying to do; it was obnoxious and over done.
Like a boy on the playground that pulls your hair and calls you names because he "likes" you.
Actually, what is the book and what Varric told Cassadra were 2 different things. The Hof actions being kept Accurate is up to debate, does any of the lore take about the warden butchering dalish elves or betraying and backstabbing a king to power?
History still warps their tales.
Like the HoA.
How can it be over done if this is how people truly act?
Mass Effect and DA aren't the same game nor are they trying to
"All that they have to do is create Origins II".
Carrying on with the spirits of their respective universes is not claiming that Mass Effect and Dragon Age are the same game.
Dragon Age lacks a certain consistency in a bad way. Like a hyperactive problem child, it refuses to sit still and bounces off the walls; keeping up with the retcons and the changes is a game all to itself.
Retour en haut