Alright. I'm dropping it.
^ Do you mean this case? I personally considered that one to be too influenced by constant, long-term fearmongering to make a good case, so I referred to another example.
"It's obvious you hate the Chantry"
Perhaps. So what? It is an organisation that, in my view, has almost zero redeeming factors, or that those factors don't outweigh all the shit it does. At least one sister at Haven recognised that she does not need a Grand Cleric (or Divine) to tell her what to do (or believe).
"The Evanuris are self-proclaimed "gods" that enslaved their own kind FORCING them to worship them...What else are we to call them but false gods?"
"Megalomanic asshats" is the term I would use. "False" or "true" gods just invites people to squabble.
"(Also you have no right to claim what another's faith or lack there of is)."
I'm claiming that faith or lack thereof is an individual thing. So if someone believes (for whatever reasons) that -something- "special" with specific attributes exists, it does for them. But not for me or anybody else who does not believe in the exact same way.
"A racist Divine AFTER Drakon is dead called for the Exlated March on the Dales that's a proven fact..."
The push for conversion was there before. And yet again, it is right in the Chant. So the Chantry tried to send missionaries and got mad when the elves did not want them (which is their frickin' right!). That alone qualifies as some sort of hostility to me, again.
"The Evanuris are False God-like beings they're worshipped as true gods when in fact they're simply powerful mage overlords that's a proven fact..."
The Evanuris were simply powerful rulers who demanded worship.
"Solas is a self proclaimed false god that's a proven fact."
Solas actually rejected the notion of being seen as a god, as this would have put him on the same level as those guys he rebelled against.
"The series has show us both evil humans and elves as well as good humans and elves...Sometimes they were theists othertimes atheists or doubters."
When do we see elves who are not andrastian (or do not care about faith at all), who are is not depicted as racist, discarded as incompetent, reckless or even insane (Merrill) or just dying like flies? Atheist/"I don't care" humans are pretty rare as well. The only human companion that I can think of right now is Isabela
"It shows us that the Elves were never just innocents or the Chantry just villains...That instead the simple truth is they're both simply peoples that came into conflict...History forgetting the good only remembering the bad or just lying."
That's the point, duh. I just tend to take the elven record on Red Crossing more seriously as it has more details then "Them elves slaughtered humanz!!!!". A fair share of Chantry records seem to be full of loaded language (heathen, heretic, infidel, barbarian...) and sometimes so ridiculously overblown (i.e. the claims that elves sacrificed chldren) that I have trouble taking them as much more than propaganda pieces.
"You're comment is too long to read through entirely and I don't care to chat with someone completely stuck in their ways that refuses to acknowledge any form of inbetween grey area."
Oh, thanks for pointing out that talking to you is a waste of time as well. Besides, don't accuse me of not seeing the grey areas if you insist that the elves killed the people of Red Crossing for the shit and giggles. As far as I'm considered, it was a perfect example of "failure to communicate", both from Elandrin's part and his fellow Emerald Knights. They did not try to talk to him earlier and he snuck out in the dark raising suspicion.
"I don't care for extremists..."
Yeah, that is why I usually don't give the Chantry the benefit of doubt. They -are- single-minded extremists. For the record, I don't want humans exterminated or something like that. All I would ask for is for the andrastians (and Qun) to leave others alone. But alas, both have a conversion mandate...
I did several options. Kept him around once when siding with the mage, sent him away at first and again later another time. On at at least two occasions, my Hawkes killed him, main reasons being betrayal of trust or his actions undoing any good will that mageHawke painstakingly tried to acquire beforehand. But one thing is consistent: I never allowed him back into my main party, he had to provide support from the sidelines (none of my Hawkes romanced him yet). The one time I sided with Meredith (purely for achievement reasons) I sent him off as well, to fight him later.
Tranquility does not "cure" anything, unless one subscribes to the usual Chantry BS of magic being a disease. It is as much of a cure as suicide is to mental health issues.
If a mage is considered "too dangerous" for whatever reason, then just kill them. Seekers are an entirely different story, being basically glorified spirit-assisted warriors. They are merely tranquilized as to just have one paticularly strong emotion/concept left in their mind (being devotion/faith) to attract a corresponding spirit. Spirits can be attracted in other ways.
Tranquil mages in their emotially stunted and agreeable state are too easy to take advantage of.
The only case we have seen where I could have agreed with it is this one, assuming the mage in question really made the descion on her own accord, given the details are a bit scarce. As long as any outside "encouragement" could take place, Tranquility can be easily abused. Frankly, I'd say that cultures with an anti-magic bias (Andrastianism and the Qun) could not use Tranquility without slipping into abuse at all.
In terms of punishment... I guess no. Nope. In case of dirtbags like Erimond, my mage inquisitors ended up accepting that sometimes there is no "adequate" punishment without compromising other things, so they just had his head chopped off and be done with it. No use wasting time to ponder about that idiot. Introducing Tranquility as punishment just invites another method of segregation or discrimination towards magic-users.
"Why don't you include the possibility that perhaps the Chantry and it's Founder(meaning it's Leader) Drakon weren't as fanatical or Anti-Elvhen as what's been led to believe?"
I see no reason to. Andrastian goals are clearly stated: religious world domination and the original Kordillus apparently wanted to make that happen -badly-. Perhaps he had no issues with the elves as a race, but he surely had issues with them having the "wrong" beliefs.
"Perhaps Drakon DID in fact give these other faiths a chance to peacefully convert? Perhaps it was those faiths that were in fact the hostile ones?"
"Come quietly or die" still would not sound very peaceful. The rest is straw-grasping to me, as the codex entries concerning "Forgotten Faiths" are written by a chantry scholar, who would have gleefully pointed out any hostility about those factions. Instead, we merely got some low-key passive-aggresiveness.
"We know for a fact the Dalish faith is both hostile and in fact wrong because they're worshipping false gods."
Now your are being ridiculous, at least by "Pro-Atheist" standards. Dalish faith, as far as we know, is not or at least less hostile than Andrastianism. It does not demand humans or anyone else to submit to it, while still calling those other races lesser beings (Andrastianism does both), it merely does not mention/acknowledge them at all, which isn't surprising because the origins of Dalish faith lie in a time when humans were not present on Thedas.
The "Creators" are not more or less legit than the Maker. There _are_ no "true" or "false" gods. Divinity is not an inherent feature, it is (merely) attributed by worshippers. "Gods" only exist in the minds of their believers and nowhere else.
"We also know for a fact some cults worshipped Darkspawn (That is automatically evil and foolish)."
Well, they got themselves killed, so what? Too dumb to live.
"That there's a cult that seeks to end the entire world to bring about "paradise". NONE of those religions can claim neutrality or that they seek peaceful coexistence."
I guess you are also referring to the Order of the Fiery Promise? Yes, they are insane. On the other hand, I always wondered why, despite repeated attempts, they could not be wiped out for good.
In case of the Daughters of Song, there is no indication that they did anything hostile. The Dales might not wanted much/any interaction with the Orlesians, which I can't really blame them for given centuries of slavery at human hands and Orlais pushing itself to be the next grand human empire, but we have no indication that the Dales sought to subjugate (andrastian) humans, especially not culturally or religiously. I don't think of isolation as a declaration of active hostilities.
"Perhaps just maybe the Chantry isn't perfect but neither is it as oppressive or evil as many claimed."
Andrastianism constantly claims to be "right", and to be the -only ones- who are "right" and then they go on lecturing people about hubris... Also, if your dogma claims that the faith must be spread to everyone and everywhere, so that your god will/might return, the logical consequence is that everyone who refuses conversion needs to be killed.
Lots of players apparently hold that the Qun is oppressive and totalitarian up to eleven. I also do, though I think organised Andrastianism as we saw it until now scores on the same table. Both think that their belief is the best/only truth and demand everyone to submit, seeking control and having hardly any tolerance for dissent. Both sides brainwash their subjects and hammer their ideology into the heads from young age. Both hate magic, but are still not above using it. The differences lie in their methods. The Qun scores higher on the totalitarism scale, the Chantry covers that with racism or "humans above others". It is hardly the Qun's fault that it is better with organising invasions, while andrastian countries are busy fighting each other. *lol* Lots of players reconise the Qun for what it is and are wary, while giving the Chantry a pass, and that's pretty dangerous as well.
TL:DR Both are major oppressors, and an existential threat to any other culture. The "evil" part depends on mood.
"Amerdian WAS protecting his people...He was literally peacekeeping by working with the Chantry instead of against it. Instead of going to war with them over beliefs he chose to work for them obviously trying to fix the system from within (if it had problems)."
To be honest... I guess his attempts were doomed to fail eventually. I don't think that the Chantry would have accepted the existence of elven beliefs or even some syncretist crossover like Ameridan himself apparently practised. Every interpretation that isn't within the narrow accepted standards is to be removed, otherwise loaded terms like heresy would not exist.
"But that's the thing the Chantry WAS NOT hostile to the Elves until AFTER Drakon is gone and when they refused to help combat the Second Blight. It was Drakon's Son and a racist Divine that called for the Exalted Marches on the Dales..."
I guess our take on hostility is different then. To me, the Chantry's continuous smear campaigns ("Them knive-ears sacrifice children!!!!!") and passive-aggressive attempts at proselytisation that occured beforehand are a type of hostility, or at least more of a hostility than self-isolation.
"How much do you wanna bet Drakon didn't have a good relationship with his son or that Divine? It seems obvious to me the Chantry wasn't as racist or extremist when it first started...It only became that way after many years of racial crimes on BOTH sides."
I don't take any bets in this case. Again, I wanted to know more about Drakon's and Ameridan's relations. Right now, most impressions point at Kordillus Drakon being a war-mongering zealot. Andrastianism -is- inherently racist, or at least it considers non-humans to be "lesser", while interestingly making a cop-out excuse for the dwarves, presumeably to avoid souring relations and endangering the supply of Lyrium. Being all giddy and zealous about their "great" new beliefs is pretty much a trademark of any newly established faith or cult.
"P.S. Also I'm an Pro-Elvhen Pro-Magic Pro-Mage Freedom Pro-Atheism Anti-Chantry Anti-Qun Anti(ish)-Templars player."
You do realise that you went rather "Chantry-Apologist" in your first response?
"But it's become obvious that all sides have their flaws and pros. That no one in Thedas is morally superior to the other because they've all commited what should be considered war crimes."
I haven't said that the Dales were morally superior. I merely think that they are somewhat less shitty. The elves did have a slight edge in my view though - they did not want to force their faith stuff on the humans, which cannot be said about the andrastians. My issue stems from the fact that no one bothered to explain how those two guys ended up being friends - and that the blame is solely put on the Dales and their apparent inaction. Would Orlais have lifted a finger to save those dirty heathens who refused to adopt the Chantry's "enlightened" beliefs? I guess not. Orlais wanted to expand and the elves were in the way. Bloody sure that Orlais would have waited until the Dales expended themselves against the Darkspawn before moving in, finishing off both and then occupying the lands. Is that petty and short-sighted? Of course, but no one ever claimed that imperialist zealots have to be reasonable.
"Given we've so little info on the guy who knows? He might not of hated the Elves at all just wanted to punish them for Red Crossing...Which was a horrendous crime the Elves made with no excuses. Though the genocide of many Elves and the losing of their homeland was a bit too much of punishment. If I was Emperor I'd simply want the heads of the specific Elvhen Soldiers that did it."
Of course, cultural genocide is a totally acceptable "punishment" for a bunch of enemy troops defending themselves against an enraged mob... Did you do the quest to recover the records from Din'an Hanin?
(italics copy-pasted as they were, bold emphasis by me)
"So we sought to stop you. With haste, Siona led her people to the village. There we would challenge you. There we would bring you back to us... or to justice. In the dim of a moonless night, she saw Siona through the trees. She raced toward Siona, a cry on her lips and something in her hand. Siona's arrow flew. So the woman fell, the name "Elandrin" dying on her lips, daisies slipping from her grasp."
>My take on this situation: Bad visibility that night. The elves mistook the human girl's flowers for a weapon and her approach for an attack.
"The men of the village suspected the girl's flight, and heard the scream. They fell upon the elves, but were no match.
Siona's haste surpassed your own. You knelt beneath the trees, blood-soaked petals clinging to your clothes from a final embrace. When more humans came, you would not be moved—and they would not listen."
>Strikes me as the mob attacking the elves in response, so the elves killed them in self-defense. Villagers are no match for trained soldiers.
"Their arrows found your heart and you fell beside her. We found your body in the river where they cast you aside. She was taken by her own. It was not the end, but your part is past.
Rest now as our honored brother once more. A wreath of daisies at your brow, the letter she carried in your hand. Whoever guides you, whoever guides her, may your souls meet once more in the Beyond."
>Obviously the humans did not care about that knife-eared lover. They might not have known, just like Elandrin's fellows, but they did not care regardless.
What care have I for gods I have never seen, for a Maker I do not know? Let others distract themselves with such lofty concerns. I know only this life, I have seen only this world, and I care only for you.
Perhaps your priestess distrusts the sincerity of "uncivilized" elves. If she must hear me say I will follow the Maker, so be it. Your god intercedes as much as ours. My life will not change.
I will return in two weeks' time. My heart longs for you 'til then, and will remain with you forever after.
>Even he assumes that the Chantry would not accept a non-believer! He just does not care (anymore).
^ How old are these posts? I'm just asking in case the developers/writers might have changed their mind about the player character origin pattern in the meantime.
Eh, I doubt that the early Chantry had any say about the leadership. That brings up my only but major issue with JoH: How did someone like Ameridan became friends with someone like Drakon, who did not even tolerate diverging andrastian interpretations and happily murdered those cults? It is never explained. In this light, I can't help but think if Ameridan either did not care (he went missing on some dargon hunt for his "friend" instead of, say, staying home and making sure the tensions between Orlais and the Dales don't escalate any further) or was even on a way to go and sell out his people to the Orlesians. Oh, and the overall narrow perspective on the Orlais-Dales relation is annoying as well. "Elves are shite, cuz they did not help with tha Blaight", but no mention of any possible reasons and political issues that could have lead to this point in the first place. Yet another point on the list of things that makes me feel sometimes if DAI went out of its way to specifically trash (non-andrastian) elves. Bah.
Joplin was the first iteration, Morrison being the rebooted project's name. No idea who's "everything we've heard so far" as I usually don't follow gaming journalism (especially not "angry" youtubers). Some Bioware folks at least do happy Twitter-based teasing apparently, so it is not dead. I guess EA or any other big-ass publisher would rather shelve the franchise/IP and let it die instead of selling it off to the competition.
^ That should not work, as Sera is not "elf-trained", i.e. game mechanics-wise she does not have an elven body model, but a human one.
^/^^ Those are pretty bad, given all the "running around to find a path" required. The most aggravating Shard for me is that one at Lady Shayna's valley, on that basalt-style spire. This kind of jumping puzzles isn't really helped by the imprecise PC controls, holes on the spire where one can get stuck and the fact that save+reload does not work, as the party members are re-arranged every time.
The lack of "click a spot/enemy and have your character run to it (and attack)" actually kept me from ever seriously considering a warrior inquisitor.
I tend to take a lot of options which have at least a slight chance of reducing human and especially Chantry dominance, even if there aren't too many of those in the first place.
^ I guess there's a difference between "favourite" in terms of gameplay perfomance (where Shapeshifter looses badly) and other factors. :P
Anyway, I cannot decide. I'm a bit torn between Rift Mage, Arcane Warrior and Blood Mage, as I enjoyed all three. Oh, and I don't rate Necromancer, as I did not play an Inquisitor with that spec yet.
Elves don't have beards and some dwarves had theirs fall onto their chests. It is just a unique detail of the DA setting.
^ You're right. Totally forgot about Wynne at Ostagar.
I guess the "second DA2 templar" is either Fenris or Tallis - I would not count her due being rather temporary, but she has some pretty OP anti-magic stuff that isn't even needed much in that DLC, excluding the terrible Cult of the Sky battle. Also, are we rating specs by lore or gameplay standards? I guess Shapeshifter and Templar skills are notably different then.
^^^ How would you quantify combat eyperience? At the point where characters are introduced or later?
Oghren, Sten and Aveline are experienced rank-and-file, Carver is young rank-and-file. Fenris is more specialised, but still kinda experienced. Alistair is fantasy special forces with not that much exprience, simply due to being like... 20? in DAO. I don't know how to rate the rogues... simply because they are rogues a.k.a. not meant for direct engagements, though Isabela is probably the most straightforward in terms of chosen style. Sebastian at least probably had the best tutors his family could afford. *lol*
The mages are iffy, honestly. Anders is probably the most experienced by DA2, due to his time as a warden. Merrill and espcially Morrigan, as designated "apostates" were probably mostly relying on misdirection and confusion instead of fighting things directly. And Wynne is a circle mage, so I guess despite her age her combat experience in terms of fighting guys with swords, or at least her training, is minimal at best.
Wasn't Cullen recruited (by Cassandra) before the Conclave? In that case, I would probably have them in templar attire. If I recall right, the Inquisition "eyeball armor" only appears after the prologue during the official declaration and the troops encountered during the prologue are (still?) wearing Ferelden-style armor, given all that leather and fur.
^ One the other hand, why should she care about moving the bodies around into that pit, regardless of her capabilites to do so? Seems like a waste of effort to me. Her tendency to utterly destroy all caravans on the road seems to bring the point across. That corpse pile is not like some heads on spkies placed on a city gate where everybody moves through and could see them, it is well out of the way. As I said, chances are that anyone that could be terrorised by this display is more likely to run into either her, the bandits/looters or the darkspawn force before even coming close to that pit.
^ Of course the game is more fond of DW, Bioware in general is. People still play archers, and for archery it is kinda lacking.
On the other hand... Dueling + Keen Defense gives +10 attack and defense. The attack bonus helps when in becomes available at level 7, but a level 14 passive for +10 defense is a bit... low.
^ Both sides of Daddy/Parent issues are pretty much standard for Bioware. :P
Andrastian faith crisis is there in any DA game (Leliana, Anders - somewhat, Cassandra...), so I expect more of this as well. "Mages vs. Templars" debate probably less so, because Tevinter.