This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Game Discussion > If in DAI you can destroy the Chantry will you?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2255 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

After reading through some forums i think that this question is begging to be asked. A lot of problems involving mages and templars was caused by the Chantry. So given the opportunity would you destroy it? --Natethegreat2 (talk) 19:39, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Naa. Instead I will take part in the glorious and enlightened Lelianan/Shale-an Reformation. The legions of Andraste-Golems will bring liberty to all men, and death to all birds. TheTeaMustFlow (talk) 20:03, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

I seriously wouldn't destroy it, i fear as though that'd create more problems amongst the majority of thedosians who are rather religious which in itself may cause further problems. I'd go for a reformation rather. Decreasing its influence as an institution but not on individuals. I'd make sure that they don't hold a monopoly of truth, and declare exalted marches on those who they deem as "heretics". Lazare326 (talk) 20:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

No need for "" in word heretic. Heretic is everyone, who choosed to not follow local religion. Word heretic means one who choosed. I don't get whole overusing of "".
What are you on about? The chantry is not just a local religion. It's a continent wide religion. What are you on about "" - really? Lazare326 (talk) 20:51, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

I won't destroy it, I don't want destruction of this. Every killed human is helping demons in doing their dirty work. I have many reasons to keep that organisation. I hate Anders and I want to proove he was wrong after rejecting him and all he believed in, I want to stop his idiotic war, I think without ones like him it will be easier. With ones like him in charge peace is impossible to keep or achieve. To destroy demons I need both armies of templars and mages. For my inquisition every non-demon is my ally. Reformation is harder, but it deosn't mean unworthy of trying. It's middle age, not futuristic distopy of godless world.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 20:47, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean dystopia? And on that regards, agree with you. But by destroying the chantry, it could be done in a way that doesn't involve deaths. But that's highly improbable; like i said, many would rise up against what they'd see as heresy if it were destroyed. Lazare326 (talk) 20:53, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't completely destroy the Chantry, but I would definitely help the Dalish re-establish their religion. I hated in Dragon Age Origins, how my Dalish warden was often forced to choose between praising the Maker or being seen as a horrible villain. They should have more dialogue for speaking about the Dalish Gods. (Lon Dubh (talk) 21:27, May 3, 2014 (UTC))

No. People have the right to their faith, and trying to destroy it is just as bad as forcing it on people, if not more so. The problems with the mages and templars were caused by people, not the Chantry. Only someone mindlessly following the gospel of Richard Dawkins types think religion is inherently bad. A corrupt and powerful church is a SYMPTOM of human weakness, NOT the cause of it. The Chantry could stand to lose some of their power, but since the Templars have gone off on their own, that's already happened. There's no point in kicking someone when they're down, and even if the Chantry were hostile to and denounced the Inquisition, wiping them out would just prove them right. 22:34, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

         I think as to whether or not I'd destroy the Chantry depends on my origin. As a Mage--definitely. Because  as a Mage my best life-long plan is the advancement of Mages and more importantly, myself. I guess--depending on how much freedom the game allows--I'd become a Tevinter Mage--an Atlus Magister?--and look to literally assume as much power as possible to the detriment of my foes. As a more liberal Mage (i.e., another playthrough) I would NOT destroy the Chantry nor the circles, but I would look to assume as much political power as possible in order to not only empower myself but the mages below me.
 As any other race...I'm not sure. I think the matter--when taken from a more real-life and impartial standpoint--is very much difficult. I can only say "I'll decide once the option becomes availible" because I'm not really sure as to the ethics of Circles and Magocracies--I mean, slavery's evil but would a free-mage society really mean another Imperium?
                 --Alois1 (talk) 22:49, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Sure why not? Institutions that take faith and manipulate it as a means of furthering their own agendas spark my chagrin to no end, and the fewer of them the better as far as I'm concerned. Plus I'm sick of hearing the chant of light recited every time I pass through the Denerim market district. People can keep their faith as individuals though for all I care. ----Isolationistmagi 23:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, here's how my (main) runs will consist of: Dalish Elf Warrior Run => Snarky Fem Warrior Hawke => Apostate Mage (If possible) if not Circle Inquisitor | Human Mage Run => Snarky Fem Rogue Hawke => Human Noble Warrior Inquisitor | City Elf Rogue Run => Snarky Fem Mage Hawke => Dalish Elf Rogue Inquisitor

Note how all but one of them can be shifted to anti-chantry. I think you see where I'm coming from. My Inquisitor(s) are going to be very anti-Chantry. If not that, Anti-Bull shit. Oh, you Templars are whining because Mages use Blood Magic, but you're using Red Lyrium, the effects of which were demonstrated quite nicely in Kirkwall? Ha-no. Oh, you Mages are whining about how the Templars are too oppressive? Then why the hell are you using Blood Magic? That's the reason they're so oppressive in the first place... Ha-no. If The Inquisitor ran into Templars that weren't using Red Lyrium harassing Mages who were not using Blood Magic? Depends on the situatin, always. Dabuddah (talk) 00:08, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Of corse I'll destroy the chantry, they deserve it after the many things they've done such as takeing away the elves land and imprisoning mages. (talk) 02:46, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Down with the Chantry, up with the dragon cultists. All hail Dumat! Silver Warden (talk) 03:00, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Dumat became an archdemon, which destroyed whole Thedas, now he is dead, killed by the grey wardens and in Legacy the altar of Dumat was possessed by demons pretending to be Dumat. What's the point of worshipping a deity that is truly dead?FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 05:32, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
I dont think you got his sarcasm. (talk) 06:00, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

People will believe in what they want to believe. I don't think you can destroy a person's belief system. But the Chantry has had too much power for too long. The monopoly on lyrium, the iron grip on the templars and mages, the lobbying power in other nations all has to stop. My inquisition will not associate itself with the Chantry. The Chantry will fight to retain their influence and my inquisition will destroy them if they have too.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 03:47, May 4, 2014 (UTC))

"I don't think you can destroy a person's belief system" You mean like the Chantry tried to do to the elves? (talk) 04:33, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

"Tried" yes... the Dalish prove that nothing is lost unless you choose to forget it.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 04:41, May 4, 2014 (UTC))
What are you talking about? The Dalish prove that everything is lost unless you're damned lucky enough to find it. Dalish only swap words between common and elven because they think it means something appropriate for the given moment. They don't actually know... Dabuddah (talk) 05:37, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever heard Justice talk about Faith? ( Events occur but they occur with in context. And in the physical world, there is enough structure that one can be certain that what is has always been because its the truth and truth can always be relearned. The Dalish can relearn the truth. Thus nothing can truly be lost, just forgotten. And what is forgotten can be relearned. Because faith requires structure and belief.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 05:47, May 4, 2014 (UTC))
Yet the belief of the chantry can also be "forgotten". There can be temporary destruction of a belief system. In that matter anyone can "relearn" what is lost, but it doesn't stop the fact that there entire way of living, and believing was destroyed. IT WAS, and although they can relearn, it doesn't halt the fact that it was lost. There entire format of life, culture and home was destroyed. Lazare326 (talk) 06:04, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Lost means something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered. But truth can always be recovered so its not lost, just forgotten. Culture is always adopted to correlate with the truth. If the Chantry is saying "life should be like this" based on a lie, should that culture be worth preserving?(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 06:10, May 4, 2014 (UTC))
I get what you're on about, but that's the whole thing me and dab were arguing! Just because something is lost, doesn't mean that it can't be re-founded. If the chantry is claiming to hold the monopoly of truth on people and the way they live then it should be reduced. But destroying it, no. People would, like i said, rise up in rebellion, whether it amounts to anything is of a different story.Lazare326 (talk) 06:19, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Destroy it? No, that would imply a certain violence to the deed. I'd prefer to have them peacefully dissolved as an official organization, and let them carry out their affairs on a local and *not* extra-legal manner. EzzyD (talk) 06:11, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Right. Besides why destroy if it can be taken over and reformed? Female Inquisitor becoming divine wouldn't be a bad idea. If BW plans another games, they make one game. Thedas with without the church would be completelly different. Such spectacular difference would require 2 separate games. I told it already in another forum topic topic Forum:4th main game.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 07:01, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
why do you keep on linking forums you created? you can make your point without that.Lazare326 (talk) 07:06, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
It's easier than citation of whole point.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 07:09, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.