Is being "the Herald of Andraste" meant to be ambiguous?

If your character believes in the Maker, that the world and events are fashioned by him, then it was his will for you to have the anchor. And if you don't believe in the Maker, then nothing has changed.
Not verbatim, but the spirit in the fade says something like that. I think that's as close to an actual possibility as we're going to get.

If you mean symbolically, then they may have meant it to be true. The reason people even give us the title in the first place is because they think the Breach is fulfilling Drakon's prophesy of the end of the world. Since at the end of the Canticle of Exaltations, Andraste does physically return to the earth, the idea that she is waiting in the Fade and sent the PC back into the world as "Herald" of her imminent return is consistent with this.

I believe Flemeth also refers to us as a herald of a new age. Whether she is mocking the idea or not is open to question. She seems to have been hinting that there are going to be major changes to the world since DA2. Did she just mean culturally or something more? After all, she says she occasionally nudges history the way she wants things to go and she is aware of Solas' return, so both she and the writers could have been hinting that the Herald was about to usher in a new age and since we are barely half way through the normal Dragon Age, may be it is a reference to Solas intending to drop the Veil.

I like that they let us choose that for ourselves, and that Andrastian Inquisitors can believe that they weren't chosen.

My Inquisitor's view is that he spent most of his life surrounded by people who were convinced that their every action was the Maker's will. He has seen how disastrous that thinking is, and it both terrifies and enrages him that people are trying to push him down the same path.

Yes, but I think the story is just set up to make you question whatever your original assumption was. If you did believe, that belief is challenged when you meet the spirit in the fade. But if you didn't believe, the way everyone places their faith in the Inquisitor makes you second guess if maybe you are following in Andraste's footsteps and becoming a prophet after all. And if you believe in something else, like the Elven Gods, your faith is similarly challenged, as you realize Mythal is real, but not at all what you might have expected. So theme is pretty much about questioning beliefs and what it means to be a god or a prophet.

I'd very much doubt this. The Chant of Light is mostly based on what Andraste allegedly taught, plus Drakon's prophesy. Our Inquisitor didn't actually say or write anything of note. They might be pronounced Exalted or even Anointed after their death by virtue of the fact that they defeated Corypheus but more likely they will quietly be forgotten, particularly if they were not adherents of the religion or denied any connection with Andraste.  Events rather proved that it was not the end of the world, which was the whole justification for the title, unless of course Solas does succeed in dropping the Veil and wiping out the modern world, in which case there will be no one around to remember.

I didn't have a problem with this so much as it ran contrary to everything we had previously been told about the Chantry. Now I suppose it is understandable that those Chantry people associated with the Inquisition are likely to be the open minded, reasonable ones, and the hardliners were those in opposition but nevertheless, having played the previous games and read all the lore I was surprised to say the least at the reaction of some of the believers. For example:

a) When Cassandra asks me about my beliefs and my Dalish responds they believe in the elven gods, she responds with asking if I couldn't find room for one more god? This struck me as very odd, both in character and as a player. We had previously been told that the whole essence of the war with the Dales was that the elves were following their own gods and the Chantry insisted upon spreading the Chant of Light, which specifically denounces the worship of any other god than the Maker.

  Following on from the above, Giselle insisting that the Exalted March on the Dales was not a true Exalted March because only Orlais supplied troops. Not only did this contradict previous assertions by the Chantry but everything we found in the Exalted Plains confirmed that it was considered a holy war, not to mention the actual name itself.

c) Whilst my Dalish was willing to take a pragmatic approach to the title bestowed upon them when nobody knew what really happened, I was actually quite shocked when we discovered the truth and everyone was telling me it didn't matter and I should let people continue to believe the lie. It made me rather cynical and inclined to not believe anything taught by the Chantry since I already knew they inserted bits into the Chant of Light and took them out for political convenience.

d) What happened to the faith of the people when 2 years down the line the Herald of Andraste is being opposed by the political elite of Ferelden and Orlais and then loses the mark of divine favour that Andraste bestowed upon them? I notice that is something that is not even considered in the discussions in Trespasser. Take the village of Crestwood. They owe their very survival to the Herald of Andraste and not their local bann. Under Ferelden custom the freeholders get to choose to whom they offer their allegiance and taxes. Would they not object to their protector being taken away?   When the Inquisitor turned up armless wouldn't at least some people experience a loss of faith as a result?   Not to mention that the title "Herald" was given because you were the precursor to her return.   Then life went on as usual, Andraste did not return and the organisation led by her Herald was cut down in size or disbanded altogether.



Actually there are examples of this, for example the response of the Chantry to the revelations about Red Crossing as opposed to that of the Dalish. The latter actually want to make a peace offering to build bridges whereas the former just see it as confirming their actions as justified.

However, what did seem evident in the "respectful" approach given to the religion of the Chantry is that no one in game is allowed the opportunity to question it in the way that happens with the Dalish religion. Whilst we have been told they will never definitively prove or disprove the existence of the Maker, that doesn't have to extend to the religion allegedly set up with his blessing. One of the interesting parts about heading to Tevinter is that hopefully we shall at least get their take on faith in the Maker and the status of Andraste via the Imperial Chantry.

Actually, Cassandra does in fact reveal her own biases towards Andrastianism when she asks an Inquisitor with beliefs in a different set of gods to consider the Maker, yet will insult Dalish beliefs at the Temple of Mythal by asking how the elves can believe in such nonsense. Sera herself will force Lavellan to call what happened at the Temple of Mythal lies if she's in a relationship with the Inquisitor. Sera will laugh at the Dalish as well if she ever reveals what Solas tells her about the vallaslin, ignoring the fact that Lavellan is in a state of pain from the breakup.

"Dalish don't know anything!"

These two are one of the most openly devout believers in Andrastianism, repeatedly putting down a Dalish Inquisitor's beliefs, yet the player can never argue back about what happened in Here Lies the Abyss. It's believable in giving them flaws, but it's not endearing when we're given no way to dispute the hypocrisy. Andrastians don't know the truth about the Inquisitor being rescued by the Divine, yet I'd bet a few would believe that the Herald of Andraste was indeed saved by Andraste. We the player get to witness Cassandra's disapproval at suggestions that the Chantry should end, if the Inquisitor says they don't believe in the Maker or if they participate in an Avvar ritual which tells me that Andrastians are not as reasonable as they may seem. Especially when their dogma is to spread the Chant of Light to everyone.

I'm not sure that it really matters to begin with given how we can't really refuse in the beginning either. The Inquisitor was staring down imprisonment or worse until they proved they weren't an enemy. Just because there's a rift in the Fade threatening all of Thedas doesn't mean there isn't consequences for what is said and done. An Inquisitor's refusal to endorse bringing the Seekers back, for example, is one such consequence that Cassandra could face. But Cassandra and Sera's beliefs in the Maker aren't unusual for an Andrastian. They don't do anything that violate any central tenets and in fact reflect the more toxic aspects through denial of the validity of other beliefs, even denouncing them in front of others. It's like reinforcement for bystanders; It's ok to be disrespectful, to put down others who aren't like you.

With Sera, I'm more inclined to say she's closer to a borderline personality disorder, so I'm willing to say her emotional blackmailing her girlfriend is coming from a place of trauma than entitlement. It still doesn't justify or make what she does acceptable. It is interesting to note that both will take swings at others; Cassandra at Varric for lying (even though she'll lie to Dorian with similar motives), and Sera if you take her to Adamant even if you two are in a relationship. These are red flag behaviors that would make anyone who is used to persecution to steer clear around individuals like that.

None of what I say is expecting Cassandra or Sera to accept and convert to another faith; I'm pointing out though, that their behavior is hypocritical when they attack someone else. It's a common rule on forums too; No personal attacks on a person. To want to argue back with them, to expect the same amount of courtesy extended to them (that is, to not trash their personal faith openly) isn't the same as wanting them to give approval.

I doubt that there's much incentive to ignore the sky wide cataclysm affecting everyone. Everyone obviously has a stake in it. But that doesn't mean one won't have other things to deal with once it's over.

Never really said that approval/disapproval was grounds for judging. It's the actions the Inquisitor witnesses right in front of them. Being trashed right in front of teammates is a very good way to land oneself permanently in camp and to lose any chance for your Order to be revived. Or to get reprimanded when attempting assault on another teammate and potentially kicked out like Sera.

Cassandra knows how important her faith is to herself. She can be told by the Inquisitor that they believe in a different faith. That should be enough to get the point across that Cassandra wouldn't like it if someone trashed her faith in front of other people. It's basic social expectations people are taught as children. When facing prejudice by humans to the point that their clan's lives are being threatened, Cassandra's disrespect is an echo of an overarching problem that should not be tolerated. Refusing to buckle to her insults is not unreasonable or coming out of nowhere. If I don't believe she can be impartial and fair enough to extend courtesy to another race, why should I trust her with control over an organization that already harmed innocents that she even admitted to their corruption? If she assaults someone for lying and then turns around to lie for the actions of the Seekers, why should I trust her to renew it?