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 22:13:54 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). There is not middle-ground, as long as there are innocent people in prison, even if the prison is a golden cage, and this innocents are dangerous. Freedom is dangerous, the people need to learn to live with it. This story about the mages/magic is unthinking. (Always a hard thing in a magical fantasy.) If the mages are that dangerous, then the Templars never would able to control them, especially not, if collected them in one place. Despite the can control them. Nonsense. But on the other hand, mages are that dangerous: for example Alexius. Alexius is an anomaly. Let's see: if Alexius just a talented and educated mage, no more, then the Thedas already not exist, nor Alexius, because a talented and educated mage would have been destroyed long ago with a failed magical experiment... And, in the Tevinter Alexius was a honored mage, a Magister, but only a Magister, there are also several other, with similar talent and education and ambition. And as I said: Tevinter (and Thedas) still exist, didn't destroyed. Nonsense. So: where lies this middle-ground? (No matter, that secular or Chantry Templars are the prison guards, the problem is the prison and the innocents.)
|
|
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 22:42:39 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.
"I'm not sure I agree with letting dangerous people run amok." At the end battle talk. And always felt, that Varric don't likes this decision.
|
|
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 Jan 1, 2017 10:32:03 GMT
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). There is not middle-ground, as long as there are innocent people in prison, even if the prison is a golden cage, and this innocents are dangerous. Freedom is dangerous, the people need to learn to live with it. This story about the mages/magic is unthinking. (Always a hard thing in a magical fantasy.) If the mages are that dangerous, then the Templars never would able to control them, especially not, if collected them in one place. Despite the can control them. Nonsense. But on the other hand, mages are that dangerous: for example Alexius. Alexius is an anomaly. Let's see: if Alexius just a talented and educated mage, no more, then the Thedas already not exist, nor Alexius, because a talented and educated mage would have been destroyed long ago with a failed magical experiment... And, in the Tevinter Alexius was a honored mage, a Magister, but only a Magister, there are also several other, with similar talent and education and ambition. And as I said: Tevinter (and Thedas) still exist, didn't destroyed. Nonsense. So: where lies this middle-ground? (No matter, that secular or Chantry Templars are the prison guards, the problem is the prison and the innocents.) How about reading the link I posted then? I'm not going to rehash all of that out in a thread that is ultimately NOT about mage issues.
|
|
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 Jan 1, 2017 12:48:11 GMT
There is not middle-ground, as long as there are innocent people in prison, even if the prison is a golden cage, and this innocents are dangerous. Freedom is dangerous, the people need to learn to live with it. This story about the mages/magic is unthinking. (Always a hard thing in a magical fantasy.) If the mages are that dangerous, then the Templars never would able to control them, especially not, if collected them in one place. Despite the can control them. Nonsense. But on the other hand, mages are that dangerous: for example Alexius. Alexius is an anomaly. Let's see: if Alexius just a talented and educated mage, no more, then the Thedas already not exist, nor Alexius, because a talented and educated mage would have been destroyed long ago with a failed magical experiment... And, in the Tevinter Alexius was a honored mage, a Magister, but only a Magister, there are also several other, with similar talent and education and ambition. And as I said: Tevinter (and Thedas) still exist, didn't destroyed. Nonsense. So: where lies this middle-ground? (No matter, that secular or Chantry Templars are the prison guards, the problem is the prison and the innocents.) How about reading the link I posted then? I'm not going to rehash all of that out in a thread that is ultimately NOT about mage issues. In the mage issues the middle-ground would be lame solution or in fact, no solution. In the Inquilsition the Chantry issues as I see this was good solution, despite, that the people don't likes this. The Inquisition is Chantry institution, not elf, qunari or dwarf, so: natural, that the Inquisitor can't destroy the Chantry, in fact help in rebuilding in any case. s/he don't have other choice, his/her religion is irrelevant. In addition, if the Inquisitor want to help, the better if cooperate for the moral of the people, who who overwhelmingly Andrastians. S/He is a Chosen One, not a religious/spiritual leader, a saint or a prophet. Just a wo/man, who was able to solve a problem, and was able to revive the faith with his/her mere existence, because of the strange mark, no matter, what s/he say about the religion, about Andraste and him/herself. The Inquisition's real leader was the Chantry: Cassandra, Leliana, no matter, that the Chantry had no legal leader at the moment. At least I never felt, that the Inquisitor a real leader. S/He's just a problem-solving person. In this respect, it is not badly written. And that can a Dalish Inquisitor believe Maker AND the elf gods? Definitely yes, but this is not necessary, in the aspect of the tasks. This may be annoying, but not illogical. When a player decides to play through the story, means, that the elf/dwarf/qunari Inquisitor able to accept the circumstances.
|
|
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 Jan 1, 2017 15:18:51 GMT
In terms of playing the part of Inquisitor my Lavellan had no problem with that because after all I'd been sent to the Conclave as a spy, so who was I to complain if they decided to put me in charge, where I could get an even better insight into how these human institutions worked. In fact if you don't believe in the Maker, it makes it even easier to play the part because as far as you are concerned, there is no god to offend if you embrace the role of Herald of Andraste. I did this with one of my Lavellans and had enormous fun with it because it was so amusing to be able to make decisions in the name of Andraste/the Maker and then waiting for the divine retribution for taking his name in vain, which of course never came.
The reason my main, canon, Lavellan disbanded the Inquisition, among other things, was the fact that he acknowledged it was just going to be an instrument of the Chantry in the future, just as the first one had been when it was handed over to them. Considering how that turned out, he had no intention of doing the same. It would just have made him Ameridan mark two. Strangely enough, Leliana seemed to be of the same opinion since even before the Exalted Council started, she was advising me to disband, yet she was the Divine. Given the changes that Leliana makes to doctrine if she is left as Divine, in some ways that was the closest you could get to actually destroying the Chantry. So I had no problem with the fact that you couldn't actually end the Chantry as an institution.
What I have wanted since DAO is the option to be an Andrastrian without acknowledging the authority of the Chantry. The more of the history of Thedas they reveal, the more it is evident that there were many different cults of Andraste in the past and the reason we have the current two versions is that they both became the state religion of their respective empires. So whether I am playing a Dalish elf or not, I'd like the option to be able to state that I believe in the Maker but not the Chantry. The nearest we got to this approach is when Cassandra says that Varric believes in the Maker but won't step foot inside a Chantry, or Dorian's take on his religion, but, so far as I am aware, the PC doesn't get a similar opportunity to state that is the view that they take.
With the Dalish gods having been comprehensively rubbished and revealed to be nothing more than supremely powerful mages, I'm hoping that we are given this option in the future. What I resent is it being assumed that if my PC believes in the Maker, then they also believe in the Chantry, which I never have and the more they reveal about its history and founder, the more I am confirmed in my view. At the moment I would rather follow the Avaar religion, since at least they acknowledge their gods are nothing more than spirits but they seem to play a more active and useful role in the world than any of the other deities.
|
|
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 Jan 1, 2017 20:20:07 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. The Dalish aren't "close-minded" for having their own religious beliefs; that's like saying Christians are 'close-minded' for not sharing the same religious beliefs as Muslims, or saying that atheists are close-minded for not believing in God, or vice versa. If the developers were trying to suggest that the Dalish were 'close-minded' for having their own beliefs and refusing to acquiesce to the religion of Andrastian humans, that's simply asinine on their part. The attitude Ameridan shows is likely tied to his support for Drakon - his dialogue with the human protagonist and the qunari protagonist suggests that he seems supportive of Drakon not only conquering other lands but imposing his belief of the Maker as well. That Solas doesn't criticize this is puzzling. If Solas is so against tyrants, why does he say nothing about Drakon's tyrannical empire during Jaws of Hakkon?
|
|
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 Jan 2, 2017 14:07:04 GMT
Well may be the writers are being asinine. Or may be they have just got a thing against elves. The criticism is very biased for the most part against the Dalish customs and religion but it is particularly noticeable in Jaws of Hakkon how the writers seem to support the Chantry/human view that the Dalish brought the destruction of the Dales on themselves and only a few codices in the main game, which you can easily miss, have an alternative scholarly viewpoint. Solas is a particular case in point. How can he not know the true history of Drakon and if he does, how can he stand there and say nothing about his tyranny, even if he can't bring himself to say anything good about the Dalish? Not a single person comes forward and suggests that may be the Dalish had good reason to view Drakon as "no better than Tevinter".
It may be an anti-elven thing. Compare the way the Avaar are portrayed in relation to their religion and customs, particularly with a view to how they train their mage children, with the way the Dalish are treated, even to the extent of them altering the 3 mage rule so that the Dalish are guilty of dumping little mage children in the wild because they are so afraid of their mages (or possibly the Templars), which in itself is asinine when you consider what the Dalish believe about their ancestors and how they are meant to be prepared to die rather than surrender their culture. Yet up until DAI the Avaar were always portrayed as the aggressors who repeatedly attacked the lowlanders but now that is just a minority and the majority of Avaar are just fine. A possessed young Avaar can be sent on a tour of the lowlands and speak about her experiences with no problem at all, yet you have to bully, trick or bribe the human village of Red Crossing into accepting a peace offering from the Dalish.
Then there is the hatchet job that PW did on the Dalish clan in Masked Empire, which was necessary to "excuse" the behaviour of his main characters in loosing a demon on them. A lot of the attitudes that the clan display are in direct contradiction of what we were told their attitude was to city elves in DAO but that is now explained away by the Dalish having grown apart down the years, so there is no "typical" Dalish clan. In which case, why was Briala and the reader led to believe that this was the attitude of the Dalish as a whole? What is the point of having an Arlathvhen every 10 years to keep in touch and share lore if it doesn't result in a degree of consistency in the culture they are trying to preserve?
So to have Cassandra in the main game and Solas in Jaws of Hakkon imply that the person who accepts the Maker in addition to their own gods is being "open minded", whilst the Dalish are stupid and close minded for sticking to their own religion, does seem to be the point that the writers are trying to make, asinine or not.
|
|
inherit
376
0
Oct 17, 2016 19:19:36 GMT
3,474
opuspace
2,129
August 2016
opuspace
|
Post by opuspace on Jan 2, 2017 18:11:05 GMT
Is it possible that the writers' may have a real life bias when it comes to Andrastianism because of the real world parallel to Christianity?
I mean, no one's been pointing out how many Andrastians keep getting the Herald of Andraste wrong when they say Andraste pulled the Inquisitor out of the Fade. Where's the criticism about them getting their beliefs wrong while Sera and Cassandra are making backhand comments on Lavellan's culture?
|
|
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 Jan 2, 2017 18:42:54 GMT
Is it possible that the writers' may have a real life bias when it comes to Andrastianism because of the real world parallel to Christianity? I mean, no one's been pointing out how many Andrastians keep getting the Herald of Andraste wrong when they say Andraste pulled the Inquisitor out of the Fade. Where's the criticism about them getting their beliefs wrong while Sera and Cassandra are making backhand comments on Lavellan's culture? Can you expand on this? You mean the people in this thread, in the game, or the devs...? Who is getting what wrong? To me, that seems like applies and oranges. The example you give, of Andraste supposedly saving the Herald, is one specific incident, whereas the examples of Sera and Cassandra are directed toward the whole culture or the Dalish faith in general. If you're referring to the writers of the game and the result of what we learn in the Fade (that it was not Andraste), there is little opportunity for reactivity. You can have a conversation with both Cassandra and Dorian where they ask you how you're going to deal with the information. Cassandra is mainly concerned with the faith aspect, whereas Dorian is concerned about the magic aspect. You can say that you want the truth to be known, or perpetuate the lie. But at that point the world at large has not seen the same proof that those who went into the Fade saw, and there is limited dialogue budgeted. However, in the end, people are going to believe what they want to believe, especially if it makes them feel better. This is why it doesn't matter in general when your Inquisitor denies being the Herald, and why their race or background is not important to those who believe they are the Herald. It's not bad writing or lack of RP (the options are there to select), it's how people work, and I find that aspect of the game to be pretty realistic. The Inquisitor is not their own person, even Iron Bull tries to tell us this in that one scene with the disguise.
|
|
inherit
376
0
Oct 17, 2016 19:19:36 GMT
3,474
opuspace
2,129
August 2016
opuspace
|
Post by opuspace on Jan 2, 2017 20:24:34 GMT
Can you expand on this? You mean the people in this thread, in the game, or the devs...? Who is getting what wrong? To me, that seems like applies and oranges. The example you give, of Andraste supposedly saving the Herald, is one specific incident, whereas the examples of Sera and Cassandra are directed toward the whole culture or the Dalish faith in general. If you're referring to the writers of the game and the result of what we learn in the Fade (that it was not Andraste), there is little opportunity for reactivity. You can have a conversation with both Cassandra and Dorian where they ask you how you're going to deal with the information. Cassandra is mainly concerned with the faith aspect, whereas Dorian is concerned about the magic aspect. You can say that you want the truth to be known, or perpetuate the lie. But at that point the world at large has not seen the same proof that those who went into the Fade saw, and there is limited dialogue budgeted. However, in the end, people are going to believe what they want to believe, especially if it makes them feel better. This is why it doesn't matter in general when your Inquisitor denies being the Herald, and why their race or background is not important to those who believe they are the Herald. It's not bad writing or lack of RP (the options are there to select), it's how people work, and I find that aspect of the game to be pretty realistic. The Inquisitor is not their own person, even Iron Bull tries to tell us this in that one scene with the disguise. I think I'm more focusing on the narrative rather than any single race or person. I'm getting an overall message that Andrastians are above reproach while the Dalish can do nothing right and thus deserve every bit of misery. I can't care about changing the minds of faceless NPCs because they won't be there in person, but I do want the PC to be able to defend their stance with the characters they do interact with. It's not so much about winning the argument; It's more about having the ability to show the other side of the argument for the players. It's annoying when one side is constantly criticized and the other is put on a pedestal because it doesn't encourage deeper thinking, especially when there's information proving otherwise. These are just my interpretation, but it's becoming more noticeable on how frequently a Dalish Inquisitor has no retort against anyone who makes an ironic comment against their culture and beliefs. There's no protest, no anger nor debate when they have teammates talk trash about their family, no chance to point out the irony when Andrastians do get something wrong. Where was the option to tell Sera how Andrastians thought Andraste pulled them from the Fade and turned out to be wrong? Where's the option to remind Cassandra at the Temple of Mythal of her attempt to convert Lavellan when she belittles the Dalish faith? Irrationality may exist, but immersion's a pain when dialogue fails to balance the other side. Dorian and Bull get their chance to say their piece for Tevinter and The Qun, so I see no reason why there shouldn't be a character to actively challenge Andrastianism and point out that the followers can be just as arrogant, wrong and misled on what they know about Andraste and the Maker. That history showed that Andrastians were among the worst butchers right along the Dalish responsible for Red Crossing.
|
|
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 Jan 2, 2017 20:34:37 GMT
Is it possible that the writers' may have a real life bias when it comes to Andrastianism because of the real world parallel to Christianity? I mean, no one's been pointing out how many Andrastians keep getting the Herald of Andraste wrong when they say Andraste pulled the Inquisitor out of the Fade. Where's the criticism about them getting their beliefs wrong while Sera and Cassandra are making backhand comments on Lavellan's culture? However, in the end, people are going to believe what they want to believe, especially if it makes them feel better. This is why it doesn't matter in general when your Inquisitor denies being the Herald, and why their race or background is not important to those who believe they are the Herald. It's not bad writing or lack of RP (the options are there to select), it's how people work, and I find that aspect of the game to be pretty realistic. The Inquisitor is not their own person, even Iron Bull tries to tell us this in that one scene with the disguise. It is even something brought up and lamented by Scout Harding in an exchange with the Inquisitor at the end of the Jaws of Hakkon storyline: "Some of the secrets are necessary. Don't get me wrong. It's just... every time you're more than just a person to someone, you are also less than a person to them. They don't see that a real, normal woman fought the Avvar and killed that dragon." It is prompted by her considering how much about Inquisitor Ameridan was forgotten.
As far as I can recall, there are other conversations also about this in the main game but this one sprung to me and I had it recorded so it was easier to transcript. I think one of the ones is with Mother Giselle in Skyhold following, I believe, the events in the Fade. I'll see if I can track it down.
|
|
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 Jan 2, 2017 22:50:03 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. Clan Ghilain asks for reparations from the d'Ameride family of Orlais because the Orlesian nobles profited off of claiming that they were the direct descendants of Ameridan for centuries. That doesn't mean anything in regards to how Clan Ghilain would feel about Ameridan's personal views about the Maker (and there's no indication the People know about this), or how the clan would feel if they knew about his close association and support for Emperor Drakon and his imperialistic ambitions. Given that the Maker is a god of a human religion and not part of the elven faith, it's still the Dalish adjusting their faith to accommodate a foreign god into their religion. Cherry picking bits and pieces from the Andrastian faith doesn't change the simple fact that the Maker isn't part of the elven religion, and they've been resisting Andrastian human efforts to forcibly convert them to the worship of the Maker for centuries. Just because the humans believe in a 'creator god' doesn't mean that the Dalish have to, or that the elves ever did. Your example of the Roman Empire had to do with controlling the populace, so it isn't applicable in terms of the Dalish elves. Religions typically don't bend knee to suit the whims of other people, and the history of the Dalish has been one where they've long resisted Andrastian humans trying to impose their religion and their god on them. What I find troublesome is this notion that the Dalish could easily adopt a creator god into their religion simply because there isn't one among their pantheon, particularly given their history of refusing to acquiesce to give up their religion in favor of the god of the Andrastian Chantry. After every sacrifice they've made to maintain their autonomy - every lost soul, every hardship, every battle - it would make their history completely meaningless to force the narrative to have them adopt the human god after all their trials and tribulations.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 8:25:11 GMT
I think I'm more focusing on the narrative rather than any single race or person. I'm getting an overall message that Andrastians are above reproach while the Dalish can do nothing right and thus deserve every bit of misery. I can't care about changing the minds of faceless NPCs because they won't be there in person, but I do want the PC to be able to defend their stance with the characters they do interact with. It's not so much about winning the argument; It's more about having the ability to show the other side of the argument for the players. It's annoying when one side is constantly criticized and the other is put on a pedestal because it doesn't encourage deeper thinking, especially when there's information proving otherwise. These are just my interpretation, but it's becoming more noticeable on how frequently a Dalish Inquisitor has no retort against anyone who makes an ironic comment against their culture and beliefs. There's no protest, no anger nor debate when they have teammates talk trash about their family, no chance to point out the irony when Andrastians do get something wrong. Where was the option to tell Sera how Andrastians thought Andraste pulled them from the Fade and turned out to be wrong? Where's the option to remind Cassandra at the Temple of Mythal of her attempt to convert Lavellan when she belittles the Dalish faith? Irrationality may exist, but immersion's a pain when dialogue fails to balance the other side. Dorian and Bull get their chance to say their piece for Tevinter and The Qun, so I see no reason why there shouldn't be a character to actively challenge Andrastianism and point out that the followers can be just as arrogant, wrong and misled on what they know about Andraste and the Maker. That history showed that Andrastians were among the worst butchers right along the Dalish responsible for Red Crossing. We may not have gotten such a character in DAI, but Merrill did exist and defended her culture in various conversations, so it's not totally one-sided. We also had Velanna in DAA, but I don't consider her the best example. As far as the rest, there are still word budgets to consider. I don't find most of the Inquisitor dialogue to be pro-Andrastianism (I'm sure you can find examples, but I said "most"), but rather neutral so they can be chosen by anyone. Sure, it may not be fair in the instances you describe, but it is a logical choice for game design. There are numerous conversations where I'm not pleased with the various options given, in all three games, but it's just something we have to deal with in a CRPG where everything is pre-written.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 10:56:32 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. But Hawke's willingness to venture into darkspawn infested territory can be argued to be even more dangerous than Merrill focusing on the Eluvian considering the risk of the taint - if it simply comes into contact with your skin, you become a ghoul, which Hawke is already cognizant about due to what happened to Aveline's husband. Is it simply Hawke being 'driven' if he's willing to go to such lengths for riches? That can easily be argued to be 'obsessive'. Merrill is pouring over lore, she's extrapolated information from the shard she cleansed, she's constructed an Eluvian and is trying to activate it. She's actually proactive about the dilemma her people face. Does Varric have the same investment in saving the elves? No. Does Hawke? No. But both are willing to head into the Deep Roads - and risk the lives of everyone in their expedition, including a companion - for riches. For money. That can easily be argued to be 'obsessive' behavior. Generally speaking, I find it both strange and hypocritical that Merrill is considered 'obsessive' (to the point of denigration from some people) because she literally wants to end the plight of her people and save her entire race - who have unduly suffered for centuries - while Hawke is given a huge pass for venturing into the darkspawn infested Deep Roads for a rumored treasure that may or may not exist because he wants to help his human family.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 13:08:54 GMT
Generally speaking, I find it both strange and hypocritical that Merrill is considered 'obsessive' (to the point of denigration from some people) because she literally wants to end the plight of her people and save her entire race - who have unduly suffered for centuries - while Hawke is given a huge pass for venturing into the darkspawn infested Deep Roads for a rumored treasure that may or may not exist because he wants to help his human family. That's a generalization: that may be why some people consider Merrill to be obsessed but others don't consider Merrill to be obsessed based on her motivation but based on her behavior like how this codex has it that she has trouble remembering or finding the time to go out and buy food to eat because of the mirror so Varric begins to have food delivered to her door.
"Merrill spends more and more of her time locked away in her house in the alienage with her mirror; she leaves only to buy food, which she does so rarely that Varric has taken to having produce delivered to her door. At least she no longer gets lost as she wanders the city." - Codex entry: Merrill - The Last Three Years
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 14:16:34 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. But Hawke's willingness to venture into darkspawn infested territory can be argued to be even more dangerous than Merrill focusing on the Eluvian considering the risk of the taint - if it simply comes into contact with your skin, you become a ghoul, which Hawke is already cognizant about due to what happened to Aveline's husband. Is it simply Hawke being 'driven' if he's willing to go to such lengths for riches? That can easily be argued to be 'obsessive'. Merrill is pouring over lore, she's extrapolated information from the shard she cleansed, she's constructed an Eluvian and is trying to activate it. She's actually proactive about the dilemma her people face. Does Varric have the same investment in saving the elves? No. Does Hawke? No. But both are willing to head into the Deep Roads - and risk the lives of everyone in their expedition, including a companion - for riches. For money. That can easily be argued to be 'obsessive' behavior. Generally speaking, I find it both strange and hypocritical that Merrill is considered 'obsessive' (to the point of denigration from some people) because she literally wants to end the plight of her people and save her entire race - who have unduly suffered for centuries - while Hawke is given a huge pass for venturing into the darkspawn infested Deep Roads for a rumored treasure that may or may not exist because he wants to help his human family. The two examples are very different. To compare these is a nonsense. 1. Hawke just want to survive. Kirkwall was his Mother's idea (bad idea with mages). The expedition was Bartrand's idea, and Hawke considered, that's better way, than to live as mercenary/smuggler. (Ofc, you can play as greedy, power hungry Hawke, and in this case, you're right.) 2. Merrill's goal, to repair this cursed mirror basically dangerous, probably for her clan as well. I don't judge her, because his cause was understandable, and her intensions are good. But still obsession... despite I sympathize with her. So: you're right, only your comparation is wrong. As I see.
|
|
inherit
376
0
Oct 17, 2016 19:19:36 GMT
3,474
opuspace
2,129
August 2016
opuspace
|
Post by opuspace on Jan 3, 2017 15:58:22 GMT
We may not have gotten such a character in DAI, but Merrill did exist and defended her culture in various conversations, so it's not totally one-sided. We also had Velanna in DAA, but I don't consider her the best example. As far as the rest, there are still word budgets to consider. I don't find most of the Inquisitor dialogue to be pro-Andrastianism (I'm sure you can find examples, but I said "most"), but rather neutral so they can be chosen by anyone. Sure, it may not be fair in the instances you describe, but it is a logical choice for game design. There are numerous conversations where I'm not pleased with the various options given, in all three games, but it's just something we have to deal with in a CRPG where everything is pre-written. In Merrill's case, she's already undermined regularly by her own Keeper and teammates for practicing taboo magic and her portrayal has led to fans thinking she's a halfwit at best and a liability at worst. At least those are the reasons I've heard from those who dislike her. I recall reading a very confusing dialogue between her and Fenris about helping other elves and when he tells her he lived that life, there's an irony that's never addressed where Merrill is also living in an alienage amongst the misery as well but actually doing something about it. Afterwards, if she survives her mission, Fenris, who becomes an Andrastian convert, makes it a point on how she's a pariah, a failure to the Dalish and a monster. At that point, Merrill's defense of her people is already compromised at best, but if her people are dead, it emphasizes the rigid nature of the Dalish that already has them derided for being the cause of their decline. And Velanna...yeah, I'm trying to think of an Andrastian teammate who is her equivalent. If you know of one, would you point it out? For that matter, is there an Andrastian teammate who's unambiguously portrayed as an outright racist and is called out for it? I'm not really content with letting the writers off the hook with dialogue because they've shown that they're capable of presenting complex issues but have intentionally skewed in favoritism of one side (Quarian and Geth during ME3). When they favor one side, it defeats the point of playing it as an RPG and makes it a tedious exercise of clicking through the script. Show me someone who's not willing to let Andrastians get away with their screw-ups from a legitimate viewpoint and I'll concede they're trying to be fair about it. I've seen Bioware take fan opinions into account when enough voices are raised about an issue so I'm hoping they'll balance out the other side of the Dalish and actually show just how desperate their situation is for them to be this hostile. I won't be surprised if they don't; But I'm hoping all the same.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 16:12:20 GMT
^ Better message them on Twitter then...
(Yes, I'm still annoyed at the BSN closure.)
My remark on Velanna was only so that people wouldn't point her out after the fact. But I don't think she is a good example because of the reasons you raised; she's even more polarizing than some of the DA2 characters.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 20:57:34 GMT
I actually think they did some very strange things with the way the various religions were portrayed in DAI but to my mind the most inconsistent was the way in which the Chantry version of Andrastrianism was portrayed compared with the previous games and certainly the lore books. The dogma of the Chantry is that there is only one god. He is not one among many. His specific reason for abandoning the world is that people turned to other gods and forgot him. Now it may well be (as I believe DG stated) that the ancient Neromenians originally worshipped the Maker as one among many. What the Threnodies 6 suggests is that the other gods would only give their help to the various human tribes if they specifically rejected the Maker. Whatever the case, in Transfigurations 1 the first truth that the Maker revealed to Andraste is "there is but ONE god and He is our Maker. They are sinners, who have given their love to false gods".
Now whether this is actually what Andraste taught or whether it was subsequently altered by Drakon is irrelevant. That is the current dogma of the Chantry, which anyone who had been part of it ought to believe. Cassandra of all people, as a Seeker of Truth, should not be suggesting to Lavellan that simply being open minded enough to accommodate the Maker into their own pantheon is all that is needed. When she said that to me the first time I just couldn't believe it because of what I knew about Chantry dogma. I wanted to reply that I wasn't the one with the problem. It was the Chantry that said I wasn't allowed to have my own gods as well as the Maker.
That is the point I have been trying to make. The Dalish admit their lore is incomplete. So there would be room in the pantheon for another if they felt that god was consistent with their beliefs. The way the Canticle of Shartan is framed, it could have been possible for Shartan to believe in the Maker and his own gods because according to the Canticle, Andraste placed Shartan on an equal footing to herself in the eyes of the Maker. There is no mention of her being the Maker's bride, simply his prophet. However, equally it could have been an alliance of convenience because according to Dalish tradition, as reflected in this Canticle, their crusade wasn't about spreading the Chant of Light but bringing freedom to the slaves. Nevertheless, the Maker of the Canticle of Shartan, who supports the rebellion of the slaves would be a god they would feel able to acknowledge, given how much freedom means to the Dalish. Shartan is also declared by Andraste to be the champion of their cause, charged with freeing their people, so this god would seem to approve of the elves and their leader. She gives him a highly symbolic sword in Glandivalis, considering Glandival means "believe".
What the Dalish could not accommodate into their pantheon would be the Maker promoted by the Chantry, who does not permit freedom of worship of their own gods and in fact absolutely prohibits it. It is this god that was promoted by Drakon and on which he founded his Chantry. There were other versions of Andrastianism in his time among the tribes that did seem to accommodate the Maker as part of a larger pantheon of their traditional gods but Drakon wiped them all out in his desire to "simplify" things. The Dalish would have been aware of this, so they would be under no illusions about the direction Drakon was taking with his Maker and Chantry. It was absolutely reminiscent of Tevinter under the Old Gods, where they were forbidden their own faith and only allowed to worship the gods of their masters. This is the viewpoint that is lacking in any dialogue through DAI or its DLC.
Then we have Ameridan, who is apparently a good friend to Drakon, apparently worshipping Ghilan'nain and Andraste equally as mortals that have been raised to godhood. Now that is something that could have been compatible with the beliefs of the Dalish but was totally incompatible with the beliefs of the Chantry. Then Solas, and by implication the writers, are holding up Ameridan as an example of someone who is open minded enough to honour both faiths equally. This is, of course, absolute nonsense. He is either honouring a form of Andrastrianism as followed in the Dales, which incorporates both the Creators and the Maker/Andraste into their beliefs and is therefore an offshoot cult of both Dalish and Chantry faiths, but separate from them, or he is honouring neither faith because the Chantry would regard his acknowledgement of Ghilan'nain on an equal footing to Andraste as heretical, and the Dalish would see honouring Andraste as equal to Ghilan'nain as heretical, since to them Andraste was merely a prophet, an equal to Shartan, and not a god.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 23:17:28 GMT
But Hawke's willingness to venture into darkspawn infested territory can be argued to be even more dangerous than Merrill focusing on the Eluvian considering the risk of the taint - if it simply comes into contact with your skin, you become a ghoul, which Hawke is already cognizant about due to what happened to Aveline's husband. Is it simply Hawke being 'driven' if he's willing to go to such lengths for riches? That can easily be argued to be 'obsessive'. Merrill is pouring over lore, she's extrapolated information from the shard she cleansed, she's constructed an Eluvian and is trying to activate it. She's actually proactive about the dilemma her people face. Does Varric have the same investment in saving the elves? No. Does Hawke? No. But both are willing to head into the Deep Roads - and risk the lives of everyone in their expedition, including a companion - for riches. For money. That can easily be argued to be 'obsessive' behavior. Generally speaking, I find it both strange and hypocritical that Merrill is considered 'obsessive' (to the point of denigration from some people) because she literally wants to end the plight of her people and save her entire race - who have unduly suffered for centuries - while Hawke is given a huge pass for venturing into the darkspawn infested Deep Roads for a rumored treasure that may or may not exist because he wants to help his human family. The two examples are very different. To compare these is a nonsense. 1. Hawke just want to survive. Kirkwall was his Mother's idea (bad idea with mages). The expedition was Bartrand's idea, and Hawke considered, that's better way, than to live as mercenary/smuggler. (Ofc, you can play as greedy, power hungry Hawke, and in this case, you're right.) 2. Merrill's goal, to repair this cursed mirror basically dangerous, probably for her clan as well. I don't judge her, because his cause was understandable, and her intensions are good. But still obsession... despite I sympathize with her. So: you're right, only your comparation is wrong. As I see. They're different, but not in terms of whether or not they could be classified as 'obsessive' behavior. Rather than using the money accumulated to venture outside of Kirkwall, to settle in the country (as Carver suggests), Hawke instead ventures into the Deep Roads for a fabled fortune. Something that may or may not exist. An expedition that takes quite a long time, and could mean the deaths of every single member of the expedition if the darkspawn surrounded them at the wrong moment. That clearly indicates it's not simply a matter of survival. There are logical alternatives that Hawke can pursue to make sure his family is safe (and Carver even presents one such alternative), but to say it's simply about Hawke wanting "to survive" isn't true to the story that's presented to us. As for the Eluvian, Merrill doesn't repair it - she builds one. It's not cursed; a single shard was tainted and she cleansed it of the taint. Can her behavior be classified as obsessive? As much as Hawke helping fund an expedition into the Deep Roads that risks the lives and sanity of an entire group of people so that he - specifically - can gain possible riches and claim the Amell mansion.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 23:27:24 GMT
The two examples are very different. To compare these is a nonsense. 1. Hawke just want to survive. Kirkwall was his Mother's idea (bad idea with mages). The expedition was Bartrand's idea, and Hawke considered, that's better way, than to live as mercenary/smuggler. (Ofc, you can play as greedy, power hungry Hawke, and in this case, you're right.) 2. Merrill's goal, to repair this cursed mirror basically dangerous, probably for her clan as well. I don't judge her, because his cause was understandable, and her intensions are good. But still obsession... despite I sympathize with her. So: you're right, only your comparation is wrong. As I see. They're different, but not in terms of whether or not they could be classified as 'obsessive' behavior. Rather than using the money accumulated to venture outside of Kirkwall, to settle in the country (as Carver suggests), Hawke instead ventures into the Deep Roads for a fabled fortune. Something that may or may not exist. An expedition that takes quite a long time, and could mean the deaths of every single member of the expedition if the darkspawn surrounded them at the wrong moment. That clearly indicates it's not simply a matter of survival. There are logical alternatives that Hawke can pursue to make sure his family is safe (and Carver even presents one such alternative), but to say it's simply about Hawke wanting "to survive" isn't true to the story that's presented to us. As for the Eluvian, Merrill doesn't repair it - she builds one. It's not cursed; a single shard was tainted and she cleansed it of the taint. Can her behavior be classified as obsessive? As much as Hawke helping fund an expedition into the Deep Roads that risks the lives and sanity of an entire group of people so that he - specifically - can gain possible riches and claim the Amell mansion. About Merrill: Yes. It's obsession, scientific obsession, its exist. And this is good thing (I like it). Why you think, that's a bad? About Hawke: S/He don't risks the people's life, the people risks their own life. (When Carver said, that he don't want to go to Deep Roads? He want to join to the expedition.)
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 23:29:58 GMT
I actually think they did some very strange things with the way the various religions were portrayed in DAI but to my mind the most inconsistent was the way in which the Chantry version of Andrastrianism was portrayed compared with the previous games and certainly the lore books. The dogma of the Chantry is that there is only one god. He is not one among many. His specific reason for abandoning the world is that people turned to other gods and forgot him. Now it may well be (as I believe DG stated) that the ancient Neromenians originally worshipped the Maker as one among many. What the Threnodies 6 suggests is that the other gods would only give their help to the various human tribes if they specifically rejected the Maker. Whatever the case, in Transfigurations 1 the first truth that the Maker revealed to Andraste is "there is but ONE god and He is our Maker. They are sinners, who have given their love to false gods". Now whether this is actually what Andraste taught or whether it was subsequently altered by Drakon is irrelevant. That is the current dogma of the Chantry, which anyone who had been part of it ought to believe. Cassandra of all people, as a Seeker of Truth, should not be suggesting to Lavellan that simply being open minded enough to accommodate the Maker into their own pantheon is all that is needed. When she said that to me the first time I just couldn't believe it because of what I knew about Chantry dogma. I wanted to reply that I wasn't the one with the problem. It was the Chantry that said I wasn't allowed to have my own gods as well as the Maker. That is the point I have been trying to make. The Dalish admit their lore is incomplete. So there would be room in the pantheon for another if they felt that god was consistent with their beliefs. The way the Canticle of Shartan is framed, it could have been possible for Shartan to believe in the Maker and his own gods because according to the Canticle, Andraste placed Shartan on an equal footing to herself in the eyes of the Maker. There is no mention of her being the Maker's bride, simply his prophet. However, equally it could have been an alliance of convenience because according to Dalish tradition, as reflected in this Canticle, their crusade wasn't about spreading the Chant of Light but bringing freedom to the slaves. Nevertheless, the Maker of the Canticle of Shartan, who supports the rebellion of the slaves would be a god they would feel able to acknowledge, given how much freedom means to the Dalish. Shartan is also declared by Andraste to be the champion of their cause, charged with freeing their people, so this god would seem to approve of the elves and their leader. She gives him a highly symbolic sword in Glandivalis, considering Glandival means "believe". What the Dalish could not accommodate into their pantheon would be the Maker promoted by the Chantry, who does not permit freedom of worship of their own gods and in fact absolutely prohibits it. It is this god that was promoted by Drakon and on which he founded his Chantry. There were other versions of Andrastianism in his time among the tribes that did seem to accommodate the Maker as part of a larger pantheon of their traditional gods but Drakon wiped them all out in his desire to "simplify" things. The Dalish would have been aware of this, so they would be under no illusions about the direction Drakon was taking with his Maker and Chantry. It was absolutely reminiscent of Tevinter under the Old Gods, where they were forbidden their own faith and only allowed to worship the gods of their masters. This is the viewpoint that is lacking in any dialogue through DAI or its DLC. Then we have Ameridan, who is apparently a good friend to Drakon, apparently worshipping Ghilan'nain and Andraste equally as mortals that have been raised to godhood. Now that is something that could have been compatible with the beliefs of the Dalish but was totally incompatible with the beliefs of the Chantry. Then Solas, and by implication the writers, are holding up Ameridan as an example of someone who is open minded enough to honour both faiths equally. This is, of course, absolute nonsense. He is either honouring a form of Andrastrianism as followed in the Dales, which incorporates both the Creators and the Maker/Andraste into their beliefs and is therefore an offshoot cult of both Dalish and Chantry faiths, but separate from them, or he is honouring neither faith because the Chantry would regard his acknowledgement of Ghilan'nain on an equal footing to Andraste as heretical, and the Dalish would see honouring Andraste as equal to Ghilan'nain as heretical, since to them Andraste was merely a prophet, an equal to Shartan, and not a god. I'm pretty sure that the centuries of the Dalish resisting the Andrastian attempts to forcibly convert them to the Maker would pretty likely indicate that most Dalish wouldn't be remotely interested in worshiping the Maker. I'm fairly certain that a majority of the People would find the thought repellent considering how many people died so that the Dalish could maintain their autonomy from Chantry conversion. What you're suggesting - for the Dalish to adopt the god of a religion they have resisted converting to for centuries - would make the death of every man, woman, and child of the Dales completely meaningless. It would make every sacrifice the People have ever made for naught. Shartan's alliance with Andraste was about overthrowing the Imperium, not about her religion or the Maker. Even the Dalish acknowledge her as a "war leader" in their history, and that's it. Drakon's lackey, Ameridan, believed in the Maker. He also believed in Drakon's expansionism, as evidenced from his dialogue to the qunari and human Inquisitor. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm fairly certain most elves of the Dales didn't share Ameridan's specific views. Regardless of what the writers intended, he isn't "open-minded"; he's Drakon's lackey. He isn't critical of Drakon's mass murder of thousands of innocent people, he apparently supports Drakon expanding the Orlesian Empire, and he implicitly supports the conversion of people to the Chantry (and he doesn't seem to care that to spread the Chant to the four corners of the world would necessitate forcible conversion, which Drakon did by launching Exalted Marches against his neighbors and massacring men, women, and children who didn't convert, like the Daughters of Song). Nothing about Ameridan's behavior indicates that any denizen of the Dales followed his ideals - particularly his support of Drakon's imperialism.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 23:33:08 GMT
They're different, but not in terms of whether or not they could be classified as 'obsessive' behavior. Rather than using the money accumulated to venture outside of Kirkwall, to settle in the country (as Carver suggests), Hawke instead ventures into the Deep Roads for a fabled fortune. Something that may or may not exist. An expedition that takes quite a long time, and could mean the deaths of every single member of the expedition if the darkspawn surrounded them at the wrong moment. That clearly indicates it's not simply a matter of survival. There are logical alternatives that Hawke can pursue to make sure his family is safe (and Carver even presents one such alternative), but to say it's simply about Hawke wanting "to survive" isn't true to the story that's presented to us. As for the Eluvian, Merrill doesn't repair it - she builds one. It's not cursed; a single shard was tainted and she cleansed it of the taint. Can her behavior be classified as obsessive? As much as Hawke helping fund an expedition into the Deep Roads that risks the lives and sanity of an entire group of people so that he - specifically - can gain possible riches and claim the Amell mansion. About Merrill: Yes. It's obsession, scientific obsession, its exist. And this is good thing (I like it). Why you think, that's a bad? About Hawke: S/He don't risks the people's life, the people risks their own life. (When Carver said, that he don't want to go to Deep Roads? He want to join to the expedition.) Hawke is funding half of the expedition so that these people can go; Hawke also asks two people to accompany him to risk their lives for this venture (and one of them is potentially his brother, Carver). To say that Hawke doesn't risk their lives is to contradict what explicitly transpires in the story. Risking the lives of others for personal gain can, most certainly, be classified as an obsession.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 23:41:04 GMT
About Merrill: Yes. It's obsession, scientific obsession, its exist. And this is good thing (I like it). Why you think, that's a bad? About Hawke: S/He don't risks the people's life, the people risks their own life. (When Carver said, that he don't want to go to Deep Roads? He want to join to the expedition.) Hawke is funding half of the expedition so that these people can go; Hawke also asks two people to accompany him to risk their lives for this venture (and one of them is potentially his brother, Carver). To say that Hawke doesn't risk their lives is to contradict what explicitly transpires in the story. Risking the lives of others for personal gain can, most certainly, be classified as an obsession. Not, this is not obession. To force people to do something, what they do not want to do, and risk their life is a bad thing (abuse of power), but not obession. These people would been able to say no, they joined willingly, for profit. Carver also WANTED this expedition, and extremely angry, if Hawke don't take him. So much he angry, that he become Templar... One person, who don't really want to join is Anders, because he hates the deep roads. But don't need to force him. Even Bethany don't want to stay home, because Kirkwall seems more dangerous for a mage... but she accept easily, if Hawke don't take her. Many people are happy to join to an expedition.
|
|
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 Jan 4, 2017 0:05:47 GMT
Hawke is funding half of the expedition so that these people can go; Hawke also asks two people to accompany him to risk their lives for this venture (and one of them is potentially his brother, Carver). To say that Hawke doesn't risk their lives is to contradict what explicitly transpires in the story. Risking the lives of others for personal gain can, most certainly, be classified as an obsession. Not, this is not obession. To force people to do something, what they do not want to do, and risk their life is a bad thing (abuse of power), but not obession. These people would been able to say no, they joined willingly, for profit. Carver also WANTED this expedition, and extremely angry, if Hawke don't take him. So much he angry, that he become Templar... One person, who don't really want to join is Anders, because he hates the deep roads. But don't need to force him. Even Bethany don't want to stay home, because Kirkwall seems more dangerous for a mage... but she accept easily, if Hawke don't take her. Many people are happy to join to an expedition. Venturing into the Deep Roads for a monetary goal that may or may not exist - despite the looming danger of the darkspawn and the taint - is most certainly something that could easily be explained as obsessive behavior. In fact, I'd consider it worse behavior than Merrill forgetting to eat while she's trying to reverse-engineer revolutionary technology that mystified even the greatest minds of the Imperium. The people being able to say 'no' doesn't change the simple fact that heading into the Deep Roads endangers their lives, and Hawke is complicit in this because he's making the expedition a reality by funding it. The story clearly shows that Hawke is complicit in this. Endangering an entire group of people so that you can become rich? I'd easily call that obsessive behavior.
|
|