I don´t support the Chantry. I´d rather have the option to support the Old Gods, in the next Tevinter centric game and tear down the Chantry for good.
Yeah, I'd rather support the Chantry who at least preaches tolerance (even if it does't always follow it) than dragon-gods who demand human and elven sacrifice.
However, you realize that the powers the magisters were after involved overthrowing the Maker, yes? His response to them was essentially repelling intruders trying to break into his house, rob and murder him
In order to see it that way, you first have to believe in the Maker, and to believe the Golden City is his home. I find that hard to swallow.
You know, if you have a big, locked up castle sitting there, and there's no sign of anyone living there for a hundred years, eventually someone will climb over the walls. That's just human curiosity and the drive to explore. If there are stories about some fabulous treasture that's to be found there it'll happen sooner rather than later, and no group of priests saying "No, we don't own that place but you still can't go there because our god lives there" will be able to prevent that. The Golden City was an invitation. Everyone who saw it from afar would've liked to go there, and the stories told about it calling it the Maker's home wouldn't have prevented people from doing so for longer than it took to equip the first expedition or adventuring party, if it hadn't been almost impossible to reach.
Anyway, that's not the point. It's the metaphor that matters, and that's about power we aren't supposed to aspire to. I will always consider any religion with such a message at its core an enemy. As for the Seven, they were evil of course, as far as you can say that of any person. That abominable message gained its memetic impact from being linked to some really bad stuff, a typical propaganda move. If they are evil, of course anything they wanted to do must've been evil as well. Excellent reasoning.
BTW, Steelcan, there are worse people to be compared to. Thanks a lot. 
Anyway, that's not the point. It's the metaphor that matters, and that's about power we aren't supposed to aspire to. I will always consider any religion with such a message at its core an enemy. As for the Seven, they were evil of course, as far as you can say that of any person. That abominable message gained its memetic impact from being linked to some really bad stuff, a typical propaganda move. If they are evil, of course anything they wanted to do must've been evil as well. Excellent reasoning.
BTW, Steelcan, there are worse people to be compared to. Thanks a lot.
The metaphor is about humility and the dangers of Pride, that is not in itself a bad message. The point of the metaphor isn't that there are powers we aren't meant to have, its about the danger of putting yourself in the place of God, thinking you can do no wrong and putting yourself before all other concerns.
In one of the few times I went to church with my family outside the holidays, there was a sermon that stuck in my mind that, ironically, concerned a throne surrounded by a crowd and who should sit on it. As I recall, the minister said that many people put themselves on the throne, at the center of the universe above everyone else. But nobody should sit on the Throne. We should be in the crowd, equals with our fellow men and caring about them as we care about ourselves. I thought it was a really good metaphor. So that's how I saw the theme of humility. Obviously God has to fit in somewhere in a religious context, but it doesn't particular matter if he sits the throne (And actively defends it) or it remains empty. The point was about pride and selfishness.
From a purely metaphorical standpoint, that's how I thought it was meant to be taken. I admit, that memorable sermon might have colored my interpretation.
In order to see it that way, you first have to believe in the Maker, and to believe the Golden City is his home. I find that hard to swallow.
You know, if you have a big, locked up castle sitting there, and there's no sign of anyone living there for a hundred years, eventually someone will climb over the walls. That's just human curiosity and the drive to explore. If there are stories about some fabulous treasture that's to be found there it'll happen sooner rather than later, and no group of priests saying "No, we don't own that place but you still can't go there because our god lives there" will be able to prevent that. The Golden City was an invitation. Everyone who saw it from afar would've liked to go there, and the stories told about it calling it the Maker's home wouldn't have prevented people from doing so for longer than it took to equip the first expedition or adventuring party, if it hadn't been almost impossible to reach.
Anyway, that's not the point. It's the metaphor that matters, and that's about power we aren't supposed to aspire to. I will always consider any religion with such a message at its core an enemy. As for the Seven, they were evil of course, as far as you can say that of any person. That abominable message gained its memetic impact from being linked to some really bad stuff, a typical propaganda move. If they are evil, of course anything they wanted to do must've been evil as well. Excellent reasoning.
BTW, Steelcan, there are worse people to be compared to. Thanks a lot.
Well, I believe that there is a "Maker", though I do not know if he, she, or it (or even they) is a "god" or even worthy of worship. As Morrigan puts it, "what is a 'god'?"
But at any rate, we know that the magister's motivations were not simply the need to explore, academic curiosity, or even a wellness check for a god that hasn't been seen in a wile. It was to seize power, for the glory of their bloody-minded Old Gods and their own aggrandizement. We don't have to rely on the Chant, it came from the mouth of the Conductor of Silence himself.
And this is why one thing the Chant seems to get right, even if we don't know exactly what happened to the magisters in the Golden/Blackened City was Pride was their undoing. They wanted power for themselves. They were promised it, and they were willing to rob a god to get it.
Yeah, I'd rather support the Chantry who at least preaches tolerance (even if it does't always follow it) than dragon-gods who demand human and elven sacrifice.
But what about the power, don´t you crave for it?
But at any rate, we know that the magister's motivations were not simply the need to explore, academic curiosity, or even a wellness check for a god that hasn't been seen in a wile. It was to seize power, for the glory of their bloody-minded Old Gods and their own aggrandizement. We don't have to rely on the Chant, it came from the mouth of the Conductor of Silence himself.
And this is why one thing the Chant seems to get right, even if we don't know exactly what happened to the magisters in the Golden/Blackened City was Pride was their undoing. They wanted power for themselves. They were promised it, and they were willing to rob a god to get it.
I don't support the motivations of the Seven, but I don't think aspiring to power as such is bad. What matters is what you do to get it, and what you're going to do with it once you have it. There the Seven showed what they're like - in the thousands of human sacrifices, in the kind of world they would create were they successful, as evidenced by In Hushed Whispers. However, the Chantry tale glosses over that, the human sacrifices aren't even mentioned anywhere before they added to the Chant for WoTII. It's all about the supposed evil of the act of daring to go to a "forbidden" place, to forget that you're a person of lower order compared to a god. Well, I don't accept that kind of distinction. A god is nothing more but a being of immense power and not more or less deserving of its power than anyone else.
As for robbing a god, as I said, in order to see it that way you first have to believe there is one, and that the place you're going to go is his home. By doing this, however, you implicitly accept a specific ideology for which there is no independent evidence. From my point of view - and of anyone who lived at the time and didn't belong to the minority religion of the Maker - the Golden City was simply a place that was very hard to reach. *Of course* someone would attempt to reach it, and had anyone else done so, without triggering a world-wide disaster, that would have been hailed as a great achievement. Sure, the Seven took on more than they could handle and the world suffered for it. They're responsible for triggering the Blights. What they did, however, was not a "sin", it was an accident. You can blame them for having been reckless, which they probably were, given their egos, and call that the result of their pride with some justification, but the same action might've been attempted by someone else, with proper care and awareness of the possibility of failure.
Bottom line, as long as there are limitations, we will always try to overcome them. There lies virtue in such attempts, and no virtue in desisting if the reason for that is accepting a "lower station". Our history has brought us to the point where we don't accept lower and higher stations among men. Why should we stop at gods? I would object strongly to any experiment that involves, say, poking the sun, in my time. In five hundred years, who knows? Eventually we'll get there. There will always be dangerous borders to cross, and of course I wouldn't want the likes of the Seven to cross them first, but someone will. Eventually. And that's good. The Chantry tale says there's a border we shouldn't cross. It doesn't say we shouldn't cross it for the wrong reasons, it says we shouldn't cross it. Period. Because it's the Maker's domain. And there I disagree.
I don't know what others see when they consider the story of the Tower of Babel. I see people's heroic attempt at gaining control of their fate, and the god's reaction the wilful act of a jealous parent who doesn't want his children to grow up.
I don't support the motivations of the Seven, but I don't think aspiring to power as such is bad. What matters is what you do to get it, and what you're going to do with it once you have it. There the Seven showed what they're like - in the thousands of human sacrifices, in the kind of world they would create were they successful, as evidenced by In Hushed Whispers. However, the Chantry tale glosses over that, the human sacrifices aren't even mentioned anywhere before they added to the Chant for WoTII. It's all about the supposed evil of the act of daring to go to a "forbidden" place, to forget that you're a person of lower order compared to a god. Well, I don't accept that kind of distinction. A god is nothing more but a being of immense power and not more or less deserving of its power than anyone else.
As for robbing a god, as I said, in order to see it that way you first have to believe there is one, and that the place you're going to go is his home. By doing this, however, you implicitly accept a specific ideology for which there is no independent evidence. From my point of view - and of anyone who lived at the time and didn't belong to the minority religion of the Maker - the Golden City was simply a place that was very hard to reach. *Of course* someone would attempt to reach it, and had anyone else done so, without triggering a world-wide disaster, that would have been hailed as a great achievement. Sure, the Seven took on more than they could handle and the world suffered for it. They're responsible for triggering the Blights. What they did, however, was not a "sin", it was an accident. You can blame them for having been reckless, which they probably were, given their egos, and call that the result of their pride with some justification, but the same action might've been attempted by someone else, with proper care and awareness of the possibility of failure.
Bottom line, as long as there are limitations, we will always try to overcome them. There lies virtue in such attempts, and no virtue in desisting if the reason for that is accepting a "lower station". Our history has brought us to the point where we don't accept lower and higher stations among men. Why should we stop at gods? I would object strongly to any experiment that involves, say, poking the sun, in my time. In five hundred years, who knows? Eventually we'll get there. There will always be dangerous borders to cross, and of course I wouldn't want the likes of the Seven to cross them first, but someone will. Eventually. And that's good. The Chantry tale says there's a border we shouldn't cross. It doesn't say we shouldn't cross it for the wrong reasons, it says we shouldn't cross it. Period. Because it's the Maker's domain. And there I disagree.
I don't know what others see when they consider the story of the Tower of Babel. I see people's heroic attempt at gaining control of their fate, and the god's reaction the wilful act of a jealous parent who doesn't want his children to grow up.
I don't think the Chantry is particularly against the accumulation of knowledge and power:
Then the Maker said:
To you, My second-born, I grant this gift:
In your heart shall burn
An unquenchable flame
All-consuming, and never satisfied.
From the Fade I crafted you,
And to the Fade you shall return
Each night in dreams
That you may always remember Me
People are expected to aspire to greater things. It's part of being human.
But what the Seven did was done with evil purpose. They were not gaining knowledge or power, they were usurping it. Taking what was not theirs to use for selfish purposes. Whatever actually Blackened the city (no I do not think the Chant of Light is literally true in this ) They were guilty of this. Whether the Blights were a result of this sin is in question of course. Especially given the existence of red lyrium.
as for "robbing a god" They were robbing someone. They were taking what they had not earned. What belonged to another. If they had confronted the Maker in the Golden City, what do you think would have happened? Would they meekly have said 'Sorry, we'll just be on our way. No hard feelings" Even if they didn't taint the Golden city, create the darkspawn Blight, their actions were still "tainted" by their methods, their motivations, as well as their future intentions.
There's no shame in reaching higher. But you have to ask yourself, why are you reaching? What will you do once you get there?
Or I suppose the Babylon 5 questions: Who are you? What do you want? Why are you here? Where are you going?
As I said, I don't deny their evil purposes, but as for "usurping" things, for that you have establish that it's not out there for the taking, that it actually and legitimately belongs to someone. There is no reason to believe that unless you've already bought into the legend of the Maker.But what the Seven did was done with evil purpose. They were not gaining knowledge or power, they were usurping it. Taking what was not theirs to use for selfish purposes. Whatever actually Blackened the city (no I do not think the Chant of Light is literally true in this ) They were guilty of this. Whether the Blights were a result of this sin is in question of course. Especially given the existence of red lyrium.
as for "robbing a god" They were robbing someone. They were taking what they had not earned. What belonged to another.
We are in agreement here. Of course the Seven wouldn't have backed down had they seen any chance of succeeding in a confrontation with a hypothetical owner of the City. Unfortunately, however, the focus of the Chantry tale is not on their motivation, but on their action as such. And as for why, here's a hypothetical scenario: assuming that I was in the position, I'd be reaching because I wanted more autonomy, more control over my fate, and once I got there, well, that's the difficult part. As my ultimate goal, I would want everyone else to have the same if they want it, but will I trigger disaster if I just open the doors wide for anyone without distinction as I'd be naturally inclined to do? If I do *not* open the doors wide and prevent those I suspect of not being able to handle it from following in my footsteps, would I not assume the power of a god over other people I've always despised and fought against? I truly don't know what would be best, but I've always valued freedom higher than righteousness, and I'd rather err on the side of freedom. I hope. One never knows until faced with such a decision. This is a theme I'd rather like to explore in a roleplaying game.If they had confronted the Maker in the Golden City, what do you think would have happened? Would they meekly have said 'Sorry, we'll just be on our way. No hard feelings" Even if they didn't taint the Golden city, create the darkspawn Blight, their actions were still "tainted" by their methods, their motivations, as well as their future intentions.
There's no shame in reaching higher. But you have to ask yourself, why are you reaching? What will you do once you get there?
Yeah, I'd rather support the Chantry who at least preaches tolerance (even if it does't always follow it) than dragon-gods who demand human and elven sacrifice.
I'm reminded of Leliana "The Maker Sent Me" Left hand of the Divine on her knees in front of the Haven Chantry asking the Maker in her prayers if it wants blood.
What was that all about? Any ideas?
It depends on which chantry you're talking about?
There is a Northern Chantry and the Southern one that gets all the hate it seems
Er, why are people supportive of the "old Gods" who EXPLICITLY told their followers...
"Hey, if you want to get to the Golden City, just sacrifice a lot of slaves and you'll get there".
Don't see the point either. There are only two left anyway and I'm rather sure that the Darkspawn will find them before any cultist will get the chance to unearth the dragons.
I'm reminded of Leliana "The Maker Sent Me" Left hand of the Divine on her knees in front of the Haven Chantry asking the Maker in her prayers if it wants blood.
What was that all about? Any ideas?
Leliana doesn't believe that the Maker sent her any more, and she's having trouble with the whole "why do bad things happen to good people" issue.
Its worse for Leliana because she's always wanted to believe that the Maker hasn't turned his back on his creation like orthodox Andrastean belief says. She wants to believe in the Makers love, but finds the death of Justinia difficult to reconcile with that.
Thank you, Wulfram. That makes complete sense.
I had wondered if there was some sort of sacrificial undertones to the idea of Andrastean religion the same way there are in Christianity - without Andraste and her death, there would be no Andrastean Chantry just as there would be no Christianity without the sacrificial act of Jesus' death. But I see that it's different. Jesus died (as I was taught) so that sins of the people could be forgiven and there would be no need for further sacrifice. Andraste died because, perhaps, as you've suggested, the Maker turned its back on its children?
As I said, I don't deny their evil purposes, but as for "usurping" things, for that you have establish that it's not out there for the taking, that it actually and legitimately belongs to someone. There is no reason to believe that unless you've already bought into the legend of the Maker.
AH, but even ancient Tevinter believed in the Maker's existence. Even if they didn't worship him or evennecessarily assoscitate that being by the title "the Maker"
Again that phrase "you haven't earned it". That's complete and utter BS, and I'm as allergic to it in this context as I'm in the ME universe where I recall we've had a similar conversation about technology. You never "earn" something you find, but the mere fact that you find it and didn't need any hard work to get there doesn't make your claim on it less legitimate, and anyway who decides whether you have earned something or not? Someone else will always attempt to deny it to you. As for robbing someone, yet again, that presumes that there is someone to be robbed. The Seven were certainly prepared for robbery, and that says something about them, but not about the action in question.
I don't mean "haven't earned it" as in "you're not ready for this" I mean this literally: They would be taking from another. As in robbery, brigandage, etc. No different than breaking into someone's house and stealing their tv. Smashing a store window and looting it.
And I would say that intention and action do go hand in hand. Especially in the Fade where thought shapes reality.
We are in agreement here. Of course the Seven wouldn't have backed down had they seen any chance of succeeding in a confrontation with a hypothetical owner of the City. Unfortunately, however, the focus of the Chantry tale is not on their motivation, but on their action as such. And as for why, here's a hypothetical scenario: assuming that I was in the position, I'd be reaching because I wanted more autonomy, more control over my fate, and once I got there, well, that's the difficult part. As my ultimate goal, I would want everyone else to have the same if they want it, but will I trigger disaster if I just open the doors wide for anyone without distinction as I'd be naturally inclined to do? If I do *not* open the doors wide and prevent those I suspect of not being able to handle it from following in my footsteps, would I not assume the power of a god over other people I've always despised and fought against? I truly don't know what would be best, but I've always valued freedom higher than righteousness, and I'd rather err on the side of freedom. I hope. One never knows until faced with such a decision. This is a theme I'd rather like to explore in a roleplaying game.
Who can say what would have happened if someone with different motivations had entered the Golden City? We don't even know what precisely happened when the Seven did. The Chantry's account is almost certainly inacurate in some details, at least.
But what the Chantry does seem to be right on, interestingly enough, is the motivation.
As for your hypothetical, well "WIth great power comes great responsibility"
I don't believe in the Chantry. But I do see it as a tool in promoting peace in Thedas.
Thank you, Wulfram. That makes complete sense.
I had wondered if there was some sort of sacrificial undertones to the idea of Andrastean religion the same way there are in Christianity - without Andraste and her death, there would be no Andrastean Chantry just as there would be no Christianity without the sacrificial act of Jesus' death. But I see that it's different. Jesus died (as I was taught) so that sins of the people could be forgiven and there would be no need for further sacrifice. Andraste died because, perhaps, as you've suggested, the Maker turned its back on its children?
All of my characters have been devout Andrastians, though each in their own ways.
My first (and who I consider my primary) character, Elissa Cousland, was the most zealous. She was like Cassandra in many ways, stubborn and willful and self-righteous, but far less gregarious or likable. She was cold and harsh and utterly devoted to her duty, whether it be to the Maker, the Wardens, or Ferelden. She was also a borderline human supremacist, given her background; she spent her life with elven servants, and was taught that magic was a dangerous weapon abused by most.
My Hawke had her faith in the Maker, yes, but I picture her as an Andrastian in the same way Varric is. She doesn't see it as the governing force of her life, and part of her just likes the idea of someone always looking out for her.
My Trevelyan's faith was tested, but she always believed that she was chosen by Andraste; she just wasn't sure if she was worthy. She isn't rigid and uncompromising like Elissa, but she's no pushover, and by the time Trespasser rolls around she's a staunch supporter of Divine Victoria.
Actually the Chantry does ask for sacrifice in a way. They believe that soldiers who "gives their lives" (participate) in Exalted Marches would earn a special place by the Maker's side. Considering the fact that Exalted Marches are all about killing people in the name of religion I would say that the Andrastian religion is no different than any other in Thedas that require blood to be shed on it's behalf at some point.
I support a Cassandra run Chantry.
I support the Chantry. As Josephine mentions, it's something that's transcends the countries and unifies them, even if Tevinter doesn't follow the same model. It's seriously flawed, like most things in Thedas, but it does do good things. Like Gaspard with Orlais, it needs a kick in the rear to get back to where it needs to, so I find a steeled Leliana or Cassandra are good choices to put it back where it belongs (Viv needs to be running the mages anyway)
The metaphor is about humility and the dangers of Pride, that is not in itself a bad message. The point of the metaphor isn't that there are powers we aren't meant to have, its about the danger of putting yourself in the place of God, thinking you can do no wrong and putting yourself before all other concerns.
I have real issues with that supposed moral. Because, really, the problem was not doing your research ™ and blindly trusting in other disembodied voices on faith (the old gods, who even in the Chantry narrative spur the magisters onward). A little more critical thinking, and a little bit less faith and humility, and maybe the mess is avoided.
Since the Chantry's practices and beliefs essentially dug it's own grave...I say we should be rid of it.
@iakus, Heimdall:
Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant when I said I don't recognize the gods' domain as special: where gods exist, they're nothing more than magical superpowers. Rivals and competitors, in other words, and stealing empowering knowledge from them is no worse than sending a spy into a neighbouring country to steal the plans for their new superbomb - or, to stay in Thedas, to send a spy to the qunari to steal the formula for blackpowder. Which, btw., I consider a perfectly legitimate endeavour.
That the Seven attempted this for their own personal glory and self-aggrandizement, basically to acquire illegitimate power over others, says something about them, but as I said, the Chantry tale mostly glosses over that. From their point of view, the Maker and his domain are sacrosanct. From my point of view, they aren't, and wouldn't be even if a god actually existed in the Golden City. To anyone who would attempt a spy operation in a god's domain, I'd say "Do your research, be very careful and don't get caught. Otherwise, good luck!"
I support the Qun, In DA:O Sten was rather convincing and gave a rational point of view about it and how it was necessary for the qunaris, to gave them a purpose.
Being educated or re-educated by the Tamassran seems quite good and interesting.
As for the Chantry, I don't give a shite about it and try to always play against it or contradict it, unless I'm playing a human. Most of the Chantry npc that we meet are kind and open minded in the beginning but turns out to be a little too much hypocretical (I'm looking at you Mother Giselle 
).
Imo, the Chantry is more of a political organization than a religious one.
And since DA:I, the more we know about the elven "gods", as well as the avvar gods, the concept of the Maker became obselete, maybe there's a one above all god who created Thedas and all its inhabitants, but not the Maker described in the Chant of Light.
Thank you very much, Wulfram, for the added insight. (post#91) It's easy to understand Leliana's quandry - "why does the Maker let bad things happen to good people?" - which seems to be a challenge to any faith. The rest, especially things like whether people killed Andraste or whether a Maker let her die (Maker-blessed sacrifice), are not as easy to understand clearly.
And thank you, Hazegurl. In wondering about the element of sacrifice that seems apparent in the Chantry, Old Tevinter religion, and among the Elven gods, I hadn't considered the soldiers promised reward for forfeiture of their lives in the name of religion during Exalted Marches. But that's certainly significant.
Retour en haut