inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,699
gervaise21
10,821
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Dec 20, 2016 21:33:28 GMT
I still think that if they weren't giving Lavellan the option of saying they were willing to include the Maker among their pantheon of gods, then they should not have had Cassandra say, when you tell her you believe in your own gods, "Is there not room for one more?" This makes it seem like you are being the unreasonable one in not accepting this idea and yet you are not permitted to reply to her suggestion.
What I wanted to respond was that I had always thought it was the Chantry who said that worshipping other gods alongside the Maker was not acceptable. That's the thing really. Since the Dalish are polytheistic, it is much easier to accommodate the Maker into their system of worship than it is for the Chantry to allow the existence of other gods, yet the speech of Cassandra turned that on its head. This is also why I feel that up until Drakon appeared on the scene, the Dalish probably were quite happy to include the Maker among their pantheon as an optional thing, in honour of the prophet Andraste who once called Shartan "brother". Then once Drakon changed the outlook of the Andrastrian religion to his own peculiar version of it, that would be when the Dalish decided to drop any reference to the Maker and he came to be seen as the "foreign" god of the humans.
|
|
badking
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 11 Likes: 22
inherit
2427
0
Apr 20, 2017 16:05:20 GMT
22
badking
11
Dec 18, 2016 21:13:41 GMT
December 2016
badking
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by badking on Dec 20, 2016 21:45:14 GMT
I still say the Venatori, with their focus on bringing Tevinter back to past glory, is a better than comparing Merrill's actions to Hawke's. I don't mind a reasonable debate, but not in this thread since it doesn't pertain to the OP. If you want to start a new thread, that's a different story. I think this is an unfair comparison - the past can take many forms and can be interpreted in many ways. While the Venatori venerate the past supremacy and dominance of Tevinter civilisation over other peoples and cultures, Merrill has no such interest in elven supremacy: she's looking to restore aspects of the past to lift up an oppressed people rather than to oppress others - she's categorically opposed to oppression of various kinds (as evidenced by her sympathy towards the city elves, mages and Fenris). While there may be a similarity in idealising the past, she and the Venatori celebrate their pasts for fundamentally different reasons.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Dec 20, 2016 22:24:29 GMT
I still think that if they weren't giving Lavellan the option of saying they were willing to include the Maker among their pantheon of gods, then they should not have had Cassandra say, when you tell her you believe in your own gods, "Is there not room for one more?" This makes it seem like you are being the unreasonable one in not accepting this idea and yet you are not permitted to reply to her suggestion. What I wanted to respond was that I had always thought it was the Chantry who said that worshipping other gods alongside the Maker was not acceptable. That's the thing really. Since the Dalish are polytheistic, it is much easier to accommodate the Maker into their system of worship than it is for the Chantry to allow the existence of other gods, yet the speech of Cassandra turned that on its head. This is also why I feel that up until Drakon appeared on the scene, the Dalish probably were quite happy to include the Maker among their pantheon as an optional thing, in honour of the prophet Andraste who once called Shartan "brother". Then once Drakon changed the outlook of the Andrastrian religion to his own peculiar version of it, that would be when the Dalish decided to drop any reference to the Maker and he came to be seen as the "foreign" god of the humans. I thought Cassandra came across poorly in that scene. I'm not going to ask someone who is Jewish if there's room for Jesus in their religion, so why is she asking someone who follows a different religion than she does to just adopt her god into their religion? I wish you could call her out on that. Honestly, I don't think it is easier. Just because the Dalish believe in a pantheon of gods doesn't mean that their religion is malleable to just accept new gods at the drop of a hat (which is pretty much what Cassandra's question is about). I also don't agree that the Dalish ever believed in the Maker; all the in-game evidence supports that the elves established the Dales and followed their own gods, which is cited (from multiple sources, including the histories of the City elves) as the reason why humans took issue with them. There's no reason for the elves to believe in a human god when they have their own gods.
|
|
Norstaera
N3
Stealth Swooper
This morning my husband said I was evil like June Cleaver. I cried a single tear of wicked happiness
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
Posts: 385 Likes: 745
inherit
Stealth Swooper
1178
0
Apr 20, 2024 18:37:45 GMT
745
Norstaera
This morning my husband said I was evil like June Cleaver. I cried a single tear of wicked happiness
385
Aug 24, 2016 16:13:41 GMT
August 2016
norstaera
Bottom
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3ead/s5mkgfa593ihxkkzg.jpg
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Norstaera on Dec 21, 2016 17:48:30 GMT
I still say the Venatori, with their focus on bringing Tevinter back to past glory, is a better than comparing Merrill's actions to Hawke's. I don't mind a reasonable debate, but not in this thread since it doesn't pertain to the OP. If you want to start a new thread, that's a different story. I think this is an unfair comparison - the past can take many forms and can be interpreted in many ways. While the Venatori venerate the past supremacy and dominance of Tevinter civilisation over other peoples and cultures, Merrill has no such interest in elven supremacy: she's looking to restore aspects of the past to lift up an oppressed people rather than to oppress others - she's categorically opposed to oppression of various kinds (as evidenced by her sympathy towards the city elves, mages and Fenris). While there may be a similarity in idealising the past, she and the Venatori celebrate their pasts for fundamentally different reasons. I'm not saying it's the best comparison. Nor am I trying to compare intentions. I was just trying to point out that I don't think Hawke is obsessive and thus a bad comparison to Merrill. Maybe Meredith is a better one. The Venatori were the first example to come to mind when I was looking for obsessive behavior, partly because they are both looking towards the distant past. I am open to better suggestions, elsewhere.
|
|
Heimdall
N6
∯ Interjector in Chief
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Heimdall
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: HeimdallX
Posts: 5,597 Likes: 12,681
inherit
∯ Interjector in Chief
279
0
1
May 18, 2024 15:58:25 GMT
12,681
Heimdall
5,597
August 2016
heimdall
Heimdall
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
HeimdallX
|
Post by Heimdall on Dec 21, 2016 18:09:24 GMT
I need to check, but I seem to recall reading the TWoT v2 that the official stance of the Chantry was that holding other gods was not a problem as long as one also worships the Maker.
Which is odd considering how everything has been presented, so it seems that despite this stance most Andrastian humans view other deities as being probably demons and illegitimate, thus their worship should not be accepted.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,888 Likes: 49,358
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,358
Iakus
20,888
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 21, 2016 19:42:18 GMT
I still think that if they weren't giving Lavellan the option of saying they were willing to include the Maker among their pantheon of gods, then they should not have had Cassandra say, when you tell her you believe in your own gods, "Is there not room for one more?" This makes it seem like you are being the unreasonable one in not accepting this idea and yet you are not permitted to reply to her suggestion. What I wanted to respond was that I had always thought it was the Chantry who said that worshipping other gods alongside the Maker was not acceptable. That's the thing really. Since the Dalish are polytheistic, it is much easier to accommodate the Maker into their system of worship than it is for the Chantry to allow the existence of other gods, yet the speech of Cassandra turned that on its head. This is also why I feel that up until Drakon appeared on the scene, the Dalish probably were quite happy to include the Maker among their pantheon as an optional thing, in honour of the prophet Andraste who once called Shartan "brother". Then once Drakon changed the outlook of the Andrastrian religion to his own peculiar version of it, that would be when the Dalish decided to drop any reference to the Maker and he came to be seen as the "foreign" god of the humans. I thought Cassandra came across poorly in that scene. I'm not going to ask someone who is Jewish if there's room for Jesus in their religion, so why is she asking someone who follows a different religion than she does to just adopt her god into their religion? I wish you could call her out on that. Honestly, I don't think it is easier. Just because the Dalish believe in a pantheon of gods doesn't mean that their religion is malleable to just accept new gods at the drop of a hat (which is pretty much what Cassandra's question is about). I also don't agree that the Dalish ever believed in the Maker; all the in-game evidence supports that the elves established the Dales and followed their own gods, which is cited (from multiple sources, including the histories of the City elves) as the reason why humans took issue with them. There's no reason for the elves to believe in a human god when they have their own gods. Well, keep in mind two things: 1) The Elvhen religion is malleable to a certain degree. The number of Creators is not set. There has been at least one instance where an elf was supposed to have ascended to godhood; Ghilan'nain 2) None of the Creators are said to be the ones who created Thedas As David Gaidar put it:
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Dec 21, 2016 19:57:43 GMT
I thought Cassandra came across poorly in that scene. I'm not going to ask someone who is Jewish if there's room for Jesus in their religion, so why is she asking someone who follows a different religion than she does to just adopt her god into their religion? I wish you could call her out on that. Honestly, I don't think it is easier. Just because the Dalish believe in a pantheon of gods doesn't mean that their religion is malleable to just accept new gods at the drop of a hat (which is pretty much what Cassandra's question is about). I also don't agree that the Dalish ever believed in the Maker; all the in-game evidence supports that the elves established the Dales and followed their own gods, which is cited (from multiple sources, including the histories of the City elves) as the reason why humans took issue with them. There's no reason for the elves to believe in a human god when they have their own gods. Well, keep in mind two things: 1) The Elvhen religion is malleable to a certain degree. The number of Creators is not set. There has been at least one instance where an elf was supposed to have ascended to godhood; Ghilan'nain 2) None of the Creators are said to be the ones who created Thedas As David Gaidar put it:Not having a 'creator' deity doesn't mean that their religion is malleable at all, which is the issue I have when some people suggest that the Dalish religion can be bent in any direction simply because they believe in a pantheon of gods instead of a singular god. Religions don't work that way. To put this in a real world context, just because you could, hypothetically, insert Jesus in the Jewish faith doesn't mean that the Jewish faith is malleable, for example. It's no different with the elven religion; just because you can, hypothetically, insert the Maker into the religion does not mean it's malleable.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,888 Likes: 49,358
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,358
Iakus
20,888
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 21, 2016 20:12:40 GMT
Well, keep in mind two things: 1) The Elvhen religion is malleable to a certain degree. The number of Creators is not set. There has been at least one instance where an elf was supposed to have ascended to godhood; Ghilan'nain 2) None of the Creators are said to be the ones who created Thedas As David Gaidar put it:Not having a 'creator' deity doesn't mean that their religion is malleable at all, which is the issue I have when some people suggest that the Dalish religion can be bent in any direction simply because they believe in a pantheon of gods instead of a singular god. Religions don't work that way. To put this in a real world context, just because you could, hypothetically, insert Jesus in the Jewish faith doesn't mean that the Jewish faith is malleable, for example. It's no different with the elven religion; just because you can, hypothetically, insert the Maker into the religion does not mean it's malleable. I only stated that it is malleable in the context that the number of Creators is not set, that it is within elven religion for one to join their ranks. There is precedent for that. the second point is to simply show that the elven religion does not prohibit the existence of the Maker. From that point of view, the Maker and the Creators can exist side-by-side with no contradiction.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Dec 21, 2016 20:32:57 GMT
I think this is an unfair comparison - the past can take many forms and can be interpreted in many ways. While the Venatori venerate the past supremacy and dominance of Tevinter civilisation over other peoples and cultures, Merrill has no such interest in elven supremacy: she's looking to restore aspects of the past to lift up an oppressed people rather than to oppress others - she's categorically opposed to oppression of various kinds (as evidenced by her sympathy towards the city elves, mages and Fenris). While there may be a similarity in idealising the past, she and the Venatori celebrate their pasts for fundamentally different reasons. I'm not saying it's the best comparison. Nor am I trying to compare intentions. I was just trying to point out that I don't think Hawke is obsessive and thus a bad comparison to Merrill. Maybe Meredith is a better one. The Venatori were the first example to come to mind when I was looking for obsessive behavior, partly because they are both looking towards the distant past. I am open to better suggestions, elsewhere. Following your initial line of thought, Hawke is 'obsessive' in the same fashion. Looking to the past to better his present situation? Willing to go into a dangerous situation for a fabled reward? Wanting to reclaim the past for his future? Willing to put someone else's life at risk for his benefit rather than theirs (like bringing Anders along)? That can easily be argued to be obsessive behavior, which I think is the problem when that 'obsessive' label is tossed around towards a particular character.
|
|
Heimdall
N6
∯ Interjector in Chief
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Heimdall
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: HeimdallX
Posts: 5,597 Likes: 12,681
inherit
∯ Interjector in Chief
279
0
1
May 18, 2024 15:58:25 GMT
12,681
Heimdall
5,597
August 2016
heimdall
Heimdall
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
HeimdallX
|
Post by Heimdall on Dec 21, 2016 22:40:04 GMT
I'm not saying it's the best comparison. Nor am I trying to compare intentions. I was just trying to point out that I don't think Hawke is obsessive and thus a bad comparison to Merrill. Maybe Meredith is a better one. The Venatori were the first example to come to mind when I was looking for obsessive behavior, partly because they are both looking towards the distant past. I am open to better suggestions, elsewhere. Following your initial line of thought, Hawke is 'obsessive' in the same fashion. Looking to the past to better his present situation? Willing to go into a dangerous situation for a fabled reward? Wanting to reclaim the past for his future? Willing to put someone else's life at risk for his benefit rather than theirs (like bringing Anders along)? That can easily be argued to be obsessive behavior, which I think is the problem when that 'obsessive' label is tossed around towards a particular character. That's a stretch. Merril is consorting with a spirit in an effort to cleanse and restore an artifact that has already cost the clan two of its members against the warnings of her people, who generally frown upon both making deals with spirits and blood magic (Even if less than the Chantry), for a vague and abstract hope that knowledge of the past will help her people's current situation, somehow. And she pursues this for over half a decade despite being ostracized from the very people she claims to want to help. Hawke is just looking for buried treasure to buy safety and financial security for her family in the nobility. If anything most around them are egging them on, telling them that this is a risky but entirely realistic and worthwhile prospect. The Amell connection need not factor into Hawke's motivations at all. Characterizing Hawke's pursuit as obsessively pursuing the past doesn't line up with the situation nor Hawke's motivation (unless you to them that way). I'm not saying Merrill is necessarily obsessive, just that there's a much stronger argument that she is compared to Hawke.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,699
gervaise21
10,821
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Dec 21, 2016 22:54:45 GMT
You see the way a Dalish could view it is that Andraste's idea of a creator god who made the world and then stood back and then watched what his creatures would do with it, fits perfectly well with the Dalish belief of Elgar'nan and Mythal coming into existence in an already formed world. So they can acknowledge the existence of the Maker but give preference in their religion to gods that were actively involved in creating the elven civilisation and teaching the elven people. There is nothing inherently contradictory about that.
Your example of the Jewish faith and Jesus is actually more applicable in comparison to the Chantry because they are both monotheistic religions. As the quote from Gaider confirms, the Chantry regard all other gods as false gods, more specifically as demons who usurped the place of the Maker in the affections of his children. This is the official line from Chantry HQ in Orlais.
Now local branches of the religion may have taken a more relaxed approach because it was easier to tolerate the local superstitions than try and eradicate them altogether. According to World of Thedas, this is the case in Ferelden where "the Chantry does not demand their removal or promote hatred against the old deities. The Maker simply stands above them." This is with respect to the old animist deities. This may also have been the case with the original Inquisition, since the tribes after Andraste seemed to carry on worshipping the Maker as one among many.
However, it was not permitted by Drakon and when he was active, all other religions, including alternative cults to the Maker, were eradicated. The official Chant has the following as the number one commandment of the Maker:
"These truths the Maker has revealed to me: As there is but one world, One life, one death, There is but one god, and He is our Maker. They are sinners who have given their love to false gods."
So any member of the Chantry who condones allowing the worship of other gods is proscribed by their own faith as a sinner. Whether this was really the teaching of Andraste or whether her words were altered by Drakon to fit his own worldview, the fact is this has been the official dogma of the Chantry since its inception.
Which of course makes the friendship between Drakon and Ameridan and the latter's appointment as leader of the Inquistion by Drakon even more peculiar. Essentially he put an outright sinner in charge of the organisation that was meant to police such things.
It is also why after Drakon, the Dalish would no longer try to accommodate belief in the Maker because of the Chantry's insistence that their gods were not permitted by him. This is also why my Lavellan refers to the Creator god by his own name for him, to distinguish between that deity and the god of the Chantry, which to his mind is a false depiction of the creator god due to the alteration of the teaching of Andraste by Drakon and his Divine. Although to be fair, apparently the elven gods weren't gods at all but just powerful mages.
|
|
inherit
674
0
38
patches
49
August 2016
patches
|
Post by patches on Dec 21, 2016 23:09:08 GMT
I've always wondered how exactly the Creators religion got restarted. I think it's a real shame we don't know more about how exactly the elves settled in the Dales and became Dalish. The statues in the knight's temple raises a lot of questions.
Ghilan'nain becoming a Creator is an old, old story set in a far away place. By the time the Dalish are declaring the Dales' official religion she's been part of the mythos for a very long time. At this point after centuries of slavery the elves where trying to figure out who they are, the human Maker would not added to the elven pantheon because it contradicts that process. If an elf did believe in the Maker and his Bride then they'd be smart to keep it quiet.
I think if the Dalish and City Elves ever do re-join after a lot of arguing the Maker would be added not as a supreme god but as the Creator of Life and Rebirth or something.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Dec 22, 2016 2:41:06 GMT
Following your initial line of thought, Hawke is 'obsessive' in the same fashion. Looking to the past to better his present situation? Willing to go into a dangerous situation for a fabled reward? Wanting to reclaim the past for his future? Willing to put someone else's life at risk for his benefit rather than theirs (like bringing Anders along)? That can easily be argued to be obsessive behavior, which I think is the problem when that 'obsessive' label is tossed around towards a particular character. That's a stretch. Merril is consorting with a spirit in an effort to cleanse and restore an artifact that has already cost the clan two of its members against the warnings of her people, who generally frown upon both making deals with spirits and blood magic (Even if less than the Chantry), for a vague and abstract hope that knowledge of the past will help her people's current situation, somehow. And she pursues this for over half a decade despite being ostracized from the very people she claims to want to help. Hawke is just looking for buried treasure to buy safety and financial security for her family in the nobility. If anything most around them are egging them on, telling them that this is a risky but entirely realistic and worthwhile prospect. The Amell connection need not factor into Hawke's motivations at all. Characterizing Hawke's pursuit as obsessively pursuing the past doesn't line up with the situation nor Hawke's motivation (unless you to them that way). I'm not saying Merrill is necessarily obsessive, just that there's a much stronger argument that she is compared to Hawke. Merrill is constructing the Eluvian from the lore she's studied and the information she extrapolated from the shard; Audacity was only involved in the sense that she needed to use magic to cleanse the shard and lacked the lyrium necessary to use ordinary magic, so she turned to Audacity to learn blood magic. That's it. Even Gaider spelled this out on BSN by addressing that the Eluvian Merrill built was formed strictly from her own research (and that she incorporated the shard into it's construction). With the shard cleansed and Merrill clearly not a ghoul (which is the case for the elves who came into contact with the remaining shards and became ghouls in Witch Hunt), the taint is clearly not an issue anymore. If Merrill's research indicated that it could benefit the People, then that explains why she wanted to utilize the technology for the benefit of the elves. As Briala's story shows, it is technology that can benefit the elves. In comparison to Merrill wanting to save her people, Hawke is venturing into the darkspawn filled Deep Roads for a treasure that may not even exist in order to become rich and acquire the family mansion. There's just as much a case to be made that Hawke is 'obsessive' for risking lives for a possible treasure as there is for Merrill wanting to bring an end to the plight of the People.
|
|
inherit
Resident Diplomat
526
0
8,896
Natashina
In lurking mode, playing the ME games.
2,340
August 2016
natashina
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights
16,553
19,139
|
Post by Natashina on Dec 22, 2016 3:01:18 GMT
I'm going to be cautious here and say that Hawke was driven, not obsessed. They didn't get so preoccupied with helping out his/her family to the point where they forgot to eat. That's a big deal to me. Hawke isn't so occupied that they forget to take care of themselves. If they had hit that point, Varric, Leandra and/or one of the siblings will have likely had a line or two talking about it.
That's what makes Merrill's drive to repair and reactivate the eluvian a real obession. She gets so wrapped up at one point that she's completely isolating herself and Varric has to bring her food. He has to even remind her to actually eat it. It becomes so bad that it's physically unhealthy for her to stay focused so much.
Do I think she's wrong for caring so much? No, I don't. I keep the eluvian intact in my DA2 sessions. However, I can see why some Hawkes have Merrill destroy the mirror. They watched their (potential) friend become very withdrawn and isn't eating well. I doubt she was sleeping well either. My Hawkes wanted to help her finish the eluvian so Merrill could find something less intense to work on.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Dec 22, 2016 3:08:30 GMT
You see the way a Dalish could view it is that Andraste's idea of a creator god who made the world and then stood back and then watched what his creatures would do with it, fits perfectly well with the Dalish belief of Elgar'nan and Mythal coming into existence in an already formed world. So they can acknowledge the existence of the Maker but give preference in their religion to gods that were actively involved in creating the elven civilisation and teaching the elven people. There is nothing inherently contradictory about that.
Your example of the Jewish faith and Jesus is actually more applicable in comparison to the Chantry because they are both monotheistic religions. As the quote from Gaider confirms, the Chantry regard all other gods as false gods, more specifically as demons who usurped the place of the Maker in the affections of his children. This is the official line from Chantry HQ in Orlais.
Now local branches of the religion may have taken a more relaxed approach because it was easier to tolerate the local superstitions than try and eradicate them altogether. According to World of Thedas, this is the case in Ferelden where "the Chantry does not demand their removal or promote hatred against the old deities. The Maker simply stands above them." This is with respect to the old animist deities. This may also have been the case with the original Inquisition, since the tribes after Andraste seemed to carry on worshipping the Maker as one among many.
However, it was not permitted by Drakon and when he was active, all other religions, including alternative cults to the Maker, were eradicated. The official Chant has the following as the number one commandment of the Maker:
"These truths the Maker has revealed to me: As there is but one world, One life, one death, There is but one god, and He is our Maker. They are sinners who have given their love to false gods."
So any member of the Chantry who condones allowing the worship of other gods is proscribed by their own faith as a sinner. Whether this was really the teaching of Andraste or whether her words were altered by Drakon to fit his own worldview, the fact is this has been the official dogma of the Chantry since its inception.
Which of course makes the friendship between Drakon and Ameridan and the latter's appointment as leader of the Inquistion by Drakon even more peculiar. Essentially he put an outright sinner in charge of the organisation that was meant to police such things.
It is also why after Drakon, the Dalish would no longer try to accommodate belief in the Maker because of the Chantry's insistence that their gods were not permitted by him. This is also why my Lavellan refers to the Creator god by his own name for him, to distinguish between that deity and the god of the Chantry, which to his mind is a false depiction of the creator god due to the alteration of the teaching of Andraste by Drakon and his Divine. Although to be fair, apparently the elven gods weren't gods at all but just powerful mages. My example was meant to illustrate that trying to merge two religions together isn't quite as simple as saying 'there's room in your religion to accommodate something from my religion', so I see no issue with my example (as it's not about following a pantheon of gods like those who follow Hinduism, Shinto, or the indigenous religion of China). You're saying that Dalish society could simply adopt the Maker into their religion (multiple men, women, and children), and I think the notion of an entire society of people adding another god simply because they follow a pantheon shows not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the religion of people who believe in multiple gods, but assumes that their religion can bend and twist to suit someone else simply because they believe in multiple gods. No, that's not how religion works, and that's not how people work. That aside, there's also no reason for the Dalish to believe in the Maker, especially considering their trials and tribulations to maintain their current religion. They've lost their homeland and have had to live centuries as nomads precisely because they refused to surrender and convert to the Andrastian faith, and the Chantry even criminalized their religion; I don't see how anyone could imagine that the Dalish would ignore those sacrifices to adopt the god of the human religion. As for Ameridan, I don't think that citing the man who seemingly approved of Drakon's imperialistic ambitions to conquer other nations and forcibly convert people to the Andrastian faith is a good example of the everyday elf of the Dales.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,699
gervaise21
10,821
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Dec 22, 2016 11:02:36 GMT
I've already said that I don't think Ameridan's beliefs fit comfortably anywhere. It is the writers who were trying to use him to vilify the attitude of the Dalish at that time. However, he makes more sense as a Dalish who has managed to accommodate the Maker and Andraste to his own beliefs than as a leader of Drakon's idea of what the Inquisition should be. Alternatively, if he is on such good terms with Drakon, then it is surprising that his fellow Dalish would give him any heed at all or that his clan would be bothered about the humans acknowledging him. Even stranger, if they had been so insistent down the years, that one of the resolutions of that War Table mission is to buy them off.
I've never suggested that the Dalish bend or twist their religion to suit that of the Chantry. I keep repeating that there is a difference between the Maker as promoted by the Chantry and the Maker as the creative force of the world. I would agree that calling him the Maker would not be acceptable to the Dalish because of the connection with the Chantry. However, it would not be impossible for them to add a creator god to their pantheon, simply because as they acknowledge, their understanding of their faith is not complete. So if they were to turn up evidence that their ancestors worshipped a creator god as distinct from Elgar'nan and Mythal, they would not be likely to reject this notion simply because it seemed similar to the ideas of Andraste. Of course this is less likely now since the writers have pretty much confirmed that all the elven gods were in reality elevated mortals.
There is no hard and fast rule about how polytheistic faiths view other gods. Some would not find it acceptable to include them. Others might be more flexible. Take the Roman Empire for example. They had the Emperor cult and their own personal pantheon of gods, but they were happy enough to accommodate other deities provided it did not disturb the status quo. They attacked the druids as a priesthood because they were the focus of rebellion against them but they did not outlaw the local deities. They raised the temple in Jerusalem and forbade Jews from entering the area afterwards because it had been the focus of rebellion against them. They condemned the Christians because of their insistence that there was only one god, which could cause offense to their own pantheon. In Athens at that time, St Paul discovered there was an altar with the inscription: "To the unknown god", which was their way of hedging their bets against offending any god with which they were not familiar.
So provided a belief in the creator god was not viewed as a challenge or threat to the worship of their other gods, I think the original elven inhabitants of the Dales would have been happy to accommodate him. It was the actions of Drakon and the Chantry that likely changed this attitude and so to later Dalish the two faiths were incompatible.
|
|
Heimdall
N6
∯ Interjector in Chief
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Heimdall
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: HeimdallX
Posts: 5,597 Likes: 12,681
inherit
∯ Interjector in Chief
279
0
1
May 18, 2024 15:58:25 GMT
12,681
Heimdall
5,597
August 2016
heimdall
Heimdall
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
HeimdallX
|
Post by Heimdall on Dec 22, 2016 15:38:05 GMT
They condemned the Christians because of their insistence that there was only one god, which could cause offense to their own pantheon. Specifically it was actually because Christians refused to take part in the public rites of the imperial cult, required of all citizens. The imperial Roman cult was inseparably intertwined with governance (A professor of mine specializing in Chinese history once noted to me that the Roman imperial cult system was the only comparable system he knew of to the function the Chinese imperial cult system, which similarly allowed for a great deal of local variation). To refuse to at least pay lip service to the public rites was effectively an act of rebellion against the state, so even more to your point.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,888 Likes: 49,358
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,358
Iakus
20,888
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 22, 2016 19:40:57 GMT
I've already said that I don't think Ameridan's beliefs fit comfortably anywhere. It is the writers who were trying to use him to vilify the attitude of the Dalish at that time. However, he makes more sense as a Dalish who has managed to accommodate the Maker and Andraste to his own beliefs than as a leader of Drakon's idea of what the Inquisition should be. Alternatively, if he is on such good terms with Drakon, then it is surprising that his fellow Dalish would give him any heed at all or that his clan would be bothered about the humans acknowledging him. Even stranger, if they had been so insistent down the years, that one of the resolutions of that War Table mission is to buy them off. I'd say this is an example showing that we really don't know the whole story about early Orlais or the Dales. It's probably not so black and white. The term "the Maker" predates the Chantry. Heck, given her origins, the Maker may have originally been one of the Alamarri gods who gained popularity thanks to Andraste and her Exalted March.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Dec 22, 2016 20:12:20 GMT
Not having a 'creator' deity doesn't mean that their religion is malleable at all, which is the issue I have when some people suggest that the Dalish religion can be bent in any direction simply because they believe in a pantheon of gods instead of a singular god. Religions don't work that way. To put this in a real world context, just because you could, hypothetically, insert Jesus in the Jewish faith doesn't mean that the Jewish faith is malleable, for example. It's no different with the elven religion; just because you can, hypothetically, insert the Maker into the religion does not mean it's malleable. I only stated that it is malleable in the context that the number of Creators is not set, that it is within elven religion for one to join their ranks. There is precedent for that. the second point is to simply show that the elven religion does not prohibit the existence of the Maker. From that point of view, the Maker and the Creators can exist side-by-side with no contradiction. An elf being elevated to the status of Creator isn't the same thing as adopting the god of a human religion into their pantheon. To put it in Morrowind terms, that's like saying Talos is the same as the Tribunal (Chimer war heroes who gained divine power and transcended their mortality, who became worshiped as gods by the Dunmer, becoming the Anticipations of Boethiah, Azura, and Mephala). It's apples and oranges. Sure, the elven religion doesn't prohibit a 'creator' deity, but it doesn't prohibit the Stone, either. It also doesn't prohibit the existence of the Old Gods being deities as well. That's the problem with trying to meld two completely different religions - sure, you can merge the two together (and with respect to the Andrastian faith, it requires tossing out a bit of their religion to make the accommodation), but that doesn't mean they're meant to be compatible. Just because the Dalish believe in a pantheon of gods doesn't make their religious views any more malleable than anyone who follows the monotheistic Andrastian faith. Just like those who follow Hinduism, Shinto, or one of the contemporary pagan faiths aren't any more malleable than people who believe in a singular god.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,699
gervaise21
10,821
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Dec 30, 2016 19:54:23 GMT
Would you believe it, I have just discovered this quote from Solas when witnessing Ameridan honour both Andraste and Ghilan'nain.
"It is a rare mind that has room to honour both beliefs equally."
This is held up as against the closed minded Dalish or elfy elves as Sera denigrates them. If this is the point that the writers want to make, that it is the closed minded that can only honour one religion at a time, why at least do they not allow the Inquisitor the option of being "open minded"?
I get it that lobselvith thinks that it is inconsistent with Dalish beliefs that they would do so but I find it really annoying that the writers force the "close minded" attitude on you and then hold up the other stance as being superior.
I still believe that the attitude that Ameridan shows might well have been possible before the arrival of Drakon but once he started to throw his weight around and forbid any religion but his own, even among fellow believers in the Maker, then naturally the Dalish would take offence and reject the god who supported this view. Forbidding the elves their own religion, customs and language began with Tevinter and the state religion of the Old Gods when they were slaves. Naturally they would regard Drakon as "no better than Tevinter" when they see him doing the same with his own co-religionists, let alone other faiths. Why didn't the writers give due prominence to this and at least have someone point out why the "elfy" elves felt the way they did?
That is what is annoying, that Lavellan couldn't counter Sera's comments about "elfy" elves with "tyrant" humans or something similar. It was not stubborn pride that made them oppose Drakon but standing up to the big bully next door, which is something she claims is what her friends do, but all the criticism by Cassandra, Sera or Solas is of the attitude of the Dalish, whilst Drakon comes in for nothing at all. The first two are understandable in view of being Andrastrian but it is really irritating that Solas should be so biased in favour of Drakon.
|
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Dec 31, 2016 15:20:34 GMT
If this is the point that the writers want to make, that it is the closed minded that can only honour one religion at a time, why at least do they not allow the Inquisitor the option of being "open minded"? Because they can only have so many dialogue options? They hardly allow people to take a middle-ground approach (my own personal stance) with the mage issue either, so it's not like this is limited to religion in these games. I find that even more amusing since that is David Gaider's stance as well (I can't find his original post, so I have to post my own response, feel free to ignore that and read the quoted bits).
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,699
gervaise21
10,821
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Dec 31, 2016 19:11:01 GMT
That was interesting, thank you. What I found strange on the mage issue is how Leliana had suddenly become entirely pro-mage rebellion, compared with her attitude in DA2. Remember her saying: "If Kirkwall falls to magic then none of us are safe" in DA2? That certainly didn't seem to be the opinion of someone who advocated total mage freedom. Then when talking about the rebel mages signing on with a Tevinter Magister, she excuses them totally on the grounds they had no choice and seems condoning their actions in giving over Redcliffe Castle to Alexius. Then conscripting the mages is equated with imprisoning them, when really you are only giving them exactly the same deal as they had with Alexius. There was a dialogue option to those who criticise you allying with the mages, that effectively says treat it like they are on probation, whereas I felt that was a more appropriate response to Leliana when she complains about you conscripting them. If you have given the mages total autonomy from the outset, how can they be said to be on probation? So the options were there, I just didn't agree with the way they were assigned. I've always been something of a middle ground person on the mage/Templar issue but whilst conscripting the Templars made me feel I was adopting that stance, conscripting the mages didn't. Yet oddly enough in the later epilogue in Trespasser it is the conscripted mages of the Bright Hand who seem to have the most confidence, particularly in dealing with Vivienne.
Remember the beginning of Act 3 in DA2? There you were given the option of saying you supported Meredith, supported Orsino or were neutral on the matter, although the game treated the latter response as though you supported Orsino in terms of who subsequently gives you the quests and the nature of them. But at least you felt you were allowed to give a middle ground response. Then naturally at the end, it was no longer possible and you had to pick a side. Mind you I was always a bit peeved with Varric's response to choosing to help the mages. "I'm not sure I agree with letting dangerous people run amoke." (Did he not get the part about most of them being innocent of the crime, yet slaughtered anyway?) Whereas with the Templars we were simply "Defending our way of life". (Supporting an illegal Rite of Annulment). Ah well.
|
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Dec 31, 2016 19:27:43 GMT
^ This is getting away from the thread, but I don't think those thoughts from Leliana are inconsistent. I think Wynne would have said something similar, and might have done in Asunder. In that case, it wasn't about supporting or not supporting mage freedom, it was about the Big Picture and how the resulting chaos would be harmful to ALL of southern Thedas, mage and mundane alike, and we see that that was indeed true. If the whole incident with Corypheus hadn't happened, necessitating a swift end to the conflict, who knows what might have happened. And too, that part of DAI was largely used as a stepping stone and a way to close out some of DA2's unfinished mess (for which its own expansion was cancelled).
I think it's along the lines of, "This shouldn't happen because it will be a big, huge mess." But in DAI it has already happened, and her preferred choice at that point is mage freedom. Seems logical to me.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
May 18, 2024 13:30:27 GMT
18,242
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Dec 31, 2016 19:38:42 GMT
That was interesting, thank you. What I found strange on the mage issue is how Leliana had suddenly become entirely pro-mage rebellion, compared with her attitude in DA2. Remember her saying: "If Kirkwall falls to magic then none of us are safe" in DA2? That certainly didn't seem to be the opinion of someone who advocated total mage freedom. Then when talking about the rebel mages signing on with a Tevinter Magister, she excuses them totally on the grounds they had no choice and seems condoning their actions in giving over Redcliffe Castle to Alexius. Then conscripting the mages is equated with imprisoning them, when really you are only giving them exactly the same deal as they had with Alexius. There was a dialogue option to those who criticise you allying with the mages, that effectively says treat it like they are on probation, whereas I felt that was a more appropriate response to Leliana when she complains about you conscripting them. If you have given the mages total autonomy from the outset, how can they be said to be on probation? So the options were there, I just didn't agree with the way they were assigned. I've always been something of a middle ground person on the mage/Templar issue but whilst conscripting the Templars made me feel I was adopting that stance, conscripting the mages didn't. Yet oddly enough in the later epilogue in Trespasser it is the conscripted mages of the Bright Hand who seem to have the most confidence, particularly in dealing with Vivienne. Remember the beginning of Act 3 in DA2? There you were given the option of saying you supported Meredith, supported Orsino or were neutral on the matter, although the game treated the latter response as though you supported Orsino in terms of who subsequently gives you the quests and the nature of them. But at least you felt you were allowed to give a middle ground response. Then naturally at the end, it was no longer possible and you had to pick a side. Mind you I was always a bit peeved with Varric's response to choosing to help the mages. "I'm not sure I agree with letting dangerous people run amoke." (Did he not get the part about most of them being innocent of the crime, yet slaughtered anyway?) Whereas with the Templars we were simply "Defending our way of life". (Supporting an illegal Rite of Annulment). Ah well. Yes, Varric isn't neutral in DA2's end. He questioned Hawke's decision on the Mage side even in the last minute. (Even Fenris was more more accepting, than Varric...) It seems, Bioware try to suggest, that the safety take precedence over freedom in any event, and the good decision is the Templar side, even if they prepare an illegal Rite of Annulment. (Leliana's behavior is interesting, yes.) Update:Yes, a good point.
|
|
inherit
1407
0
Sept 2, 2016 19:28:30 GMT
4,343
shechinah
Ser Barksalot - Hiatus
2,584
Sept 2, 2016 18:49:21 GMT
September 2016
shechinah
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by shechinah on Dec 31, 2016 22:06:50 GMT
Yes, Varric isn't neutral in DA2's end. He questioned Hawke's decision on the Mage side even in the last minute. (Even Fenris was more more accepting, than Varric...) It seems, Bioware try to suggest, that the safety take precedence over freedom in any event, and the good decision is the Templar side, even if they prepare an illegal Rite of Annulment. (Leliana's behavior is interesting, yes.) As far as I can recall, this is what Varric says: "Are you sure about this? Even you might not win this one."
To me, it sounds like the remark is Varric either saying that he is worried that Hawke won't make it or that he is worried that Hawke won't be able to win the battle for the mages, possibly both. Given that, as far as I can recall, he goes along with Hawke's decision regardless of approal or dialogue option selected, I definitely don't see how Varric is less accepting of the decision to side with mages than Fenris.
|
|