Aller au contenu

Photo

Playing a respectful atheist character


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
159 réponses à ce sujet

#76
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

Mlai00 wrote...

@ Swordfishtrombone:
You don't seem to get it no matter how much Tinnic repeats herself. Fereldan is like Medieval Europe. Where the Church is a fact of life, like Gravity.



Well, and that´s where you´re wrong. While te Chantry´s actions against apostates and in the exalted Marches are comparable to certain actions in the medieval church you can´t compare them in terms of importance.

The medieval church had worldly power; the pope was as powerful, if not more powerful, than an emperor or king and therefore the most powerful person in the world.
The Chantry, however, does hold no power over kings and is not linked with royaltie. While it is the most widespread religion it is not compulsory or the official religion of state, as you can see by the fact that neither Loghain nor Anora nor Caillan care much for the chantry.

#77
KnightofPhoenix

KnightofPhoenix
  • Members
  • 21 527 messages

Tirigon wrote...
The medieval church had worldly power; the pope was as powerful, if not more powerful, than an emperor or king and therefore the most powerful person in the world.
The Chantry, however, does hold no power over kings and is not linked with royaltie. While it is the most widespread religion it is not compulsory or the official religion of state, as you can see by the fact that neither Loghain nor Anora nor Caillan care much for the chantry.


Actually, it does. The Chantry has an army (the templars). The Chantry monopolises Lyrium trade. Only the Chantry can declare an exalted march. And its power base is in Orlais. It monopolises control over the mages and kings have to ask permission to deploy mages in battle (see Ostagar).
The Chantry has a representative in the landsmeet in Ferelden, who naturally flips out on Loghain for interfering in a Templar's "sacred duty".

The Chantry obviously has real political power in Thedas. Perhaps even more so than the real Church, because it has an army and it controls the mages.

EDIT: Oh and it's a Chantry mother who crowns a king / queen, even in Ferelden, showing how it's the official religion of the state.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 avril 2010 - 02:05 .


#78
soignee

soignee
  • Members
  • 5 035 messages
How many Templars do the Chantry have under control? I've often wondered...

#79
KnightofPhoenix

KnightofPhoenix
  • Members
  • 21 527 messages

soignee wrote...

How many Templars do the Chantry have under control? I've often wondered...


I don't think we know the exact number. But I guess it has to be a couple of hundreds for each nation in Thedas, for controlling the Mage towers.
The Templars did participate in exalted marches, so I would presume they are fairly numerous. The Knight Templars of real life had a couple of thousands of knights, in addition to other members of the order. 

But what they lack in numbers, they have in zeal.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 avril 2010 - 02:24 .


#80
soignee

soignee
  • Members
  • 5 035 messages
Sounds about right. And I'm guessing there would be recruitment during Exalted Marches, but I'd doubt those recruits would be shoved on lyrium...

#81
Swordfishtrombone

Swordfishtrombone
  • Members
  • 4 108 messages

Mlai00 wrote...

@ Swordfishtrombone:
You don't seem to get it no matter how much Tinnic repeats herself. Fereldan is like Medieval Europe. Where the Church is a fact of life, like Gravity.
Whatever your personal views, you do not "politely disagree" with the Revered Mother when she asks for a tithe for the Chantry, just like you do not "politely disagree" with the tax collector when he asks for taxes for the King. Either you make up an acceptable excuse, or you put up fightin' words.
Leliana and Alistair are poor examples. Lel is essentially a heretic. Alistair doesn't like Templar life, but that doesn't mean he disbelieves in the Maker.


And you seem to be missing my point, though I've expressed it many times. I don't CARE what the consequences of respectfully declining are, I merely want the option to do so. In medeval Europe, you certainly COULD respectflully decline to participate in the churche's actions, and what the consequences were depended on the particular location, particular time, and how freverent the particular local ruler was in upholding religious uniformity.

Certainly someone declining to participate, but not outright insulting the church or picking a fight on purpose, had better chances than someone who openly commited heresy or blasphemy - the latter kind would meet a bad end in pretty much every case.

But even if this was not the case, it is a matter of principle - someone who is an **** and goes of his way to insult the established religion in a society where that religion holds great power is being stupid; someone who respectfully declines to support or promote the religion may be putting himself into danger, but he's not necessarily an idiot; he may simply have a very principled world view.

Leliana is a perfect example - she is indeed something of a heretic, which shows that you CAN be a heretic in Faerun; and she's not done that badly at it either.

What I am looking for is allowance to play my character as a principled objector who is also a nice guy. The dialogue options sometimes seem to make it an either or choise - either you are a principled objector, OR you are a nice guy. As if having principles and not agreeing with a dominant religious organization automatically made you a jerk.

So what if this kind of position would have been rare in a medieval setting? Were world saving, blight defeating, a multi-quest hero fighting machine characters commonplace then? You ARE an exceptional character in DA:O, even within the fantacy world setting. Why should you be able to be exceptional in these other anti-historical ways, but NOT be allowed to be simultaneously a nice guy... and a freethinker? Is that combination REALLY so remarkable, so unthinkable, that having that option would ruin the immersion?

What I find surpricing is the level of resistance to this idea, from some people.

#82
Mlai00

Mlai00
  • Members
  • 656 messages

I don't CARE what the consequences of respectfully declining are, I merely want the option to do so.

That's also like saying "I don't CARE if it's jarring to story immersion, I want to be able to cite the Big Bang, Heliocentrism, and the Origin of Species the next time a Revered Mother tries to shove an invisible God onto me. Why? Because my character is a genius who traveled back in time."

There is no tolerance for "free thinkers." Either you go with the flow, regardless of your true commitment... or you're a sneering outsider-apostate like Morrigan.

How exactly do you remain civil about it, when everyone looks at you like you're crazy or retarded as soon as you voice your opinion? It's NOT a polite subject of conversation.

What I find surpricing is the level of resistance to this idea, from
some people.

When talking about what the game should have done...
#1 Rule is, "Can I see it from the writer's perspective?  And, what was the original intention?  Does it make sense?"
#2 Rule is, "Does my way make better sense?  Significantly better?"

If answer to #1 = Yes, and to #2 = No, then REQUEST DENIED.

Modifié par Mlai00, 17 avril 2010 - 02:44 .


#83
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Actually, it does. The Chantry has an army (the templars). The Chantry monopolises Lyrium trade. Only the Chantry can declare an exalted march. And its power base is in Orlais. It monopolises control over the mages and kings have to ask permission to deploy mages in battle (see Ostagar).
The Chantry has a representative in the landsmeet in Ferelden, who naturally flips out on Loghain for interfering in a Templar's "sacred duty".

The Chantry obviously has real political power in Thedas. Perhaps even more so than the real Church, because it has an army and it controls the mages.

EDIT: Oh and it's a Chantry mother who crowns a king / queen, even in Ferelden, showing how it's the official religion of the state.



The Chantry has power because the King / Queen allows it, not over him / her. You can see that as it is possible to make Anora free the mages from Chantry control; They do of course object, but they can´t do anything about it. Also the templars are too few to give the Chantry power over the Fereldan nobility, even more so as their special skills only work against mages. As Alistair says: "Against non-mages I´m just a guy with a sword."

#84
KnightofPhoenix

KnightofPhoenix
  • Members
  • 21 527 messages

Tirigon wrote...
The Chantry has power because the King / Queen allows it, not over him / her. You can see that as it is possible to make Anora free the mages from Chantry control; They do of course object, but they can´t do anything about it. Also the templars are too few to give the Chantry power over the Fereldan nobility, even more so as their special skills only work against mages. As Alistair says: "Against non-mages I´m just a guy with a sword."


Just like the Church in real life. It never reached the position of actually dominating over kings, but rather cooperatively dealing with certain issues.

#85
Sarah1281

Sarah1281
  • Members
  • 15 280 messages

There is no tolerance for "free thinkers." Either you go with the flow, regardless of your true commitment... or you're a sneering outsider-apostate like Morrigan.

What about Anders? He's rather polite for an apostate and doesn't believe that the Chantry SHOULD have control over the mages, just that breaking free all at once would lead to the Templars coming and killing them all. Just because other people would react badly is no reason to not be able to politely decline to help without outright lying. And since no one reacts as negatively as they could when you act like a jerk, I refuse to believe that being polite about your refusal would cause more extreme reactions. Besides, even if the HN, CE, and maybe even the Mage would probably know just how pervasive the Chantry is would the DE or either dwarf understand this upon first arriving at Ostagar and Ferelden proper? There's nothing wrong or even unreasonable with not being a fanatical believer but still trying to be diplomatic.

#86
Swordfishtrombone

Swordfishtrombone
  • Members
  • 4 108 messages

Sarah1281 wrote...

There is no tolerance for "free thinkers." Either you go with the flow, regardless of your true commitment... or you're a sneering outsider-apostate like Morrigan.

What about Anders? He's rather polite for an apostate and doesn't believe that the Chantry SHOULD have control over the mages, just that breaking free all at once would lead to the Templars coming and killing them all. Just because other people would react badly is no reason to not be able to politely decline to help without outright lying. And since no one reacts as negatively as they could when you act like a jerk, I refuse to believe that being polite about your refusal would cause more extreme reactions. Besides, even if the HN, CE, and maybe even the Mage would probably know just how pervasive the Chantry is would the DE or either dwarf understand this upon first arriving at Ostagar and Ferelden proper? There's nothing wrong or even unreasonable with not being a fanatical believer but still trying to be diplomatic.


Exactly. You put it more succinctly than I probably could have.

I'd like to add that OF COURSE you had people who respectfully dissented, even in the height of the medival church's power; if it wasn't so, and the loudmouth heretics were tortured and/or killed, how did we ever get OUT of such a situation of church control?

Because of people who criticized the church, but not overtly - skirting the fine line between angering the beast enough to provoke a serious reaction, and saying just enough to keep to their principles.

The comparison to wanting to reference "big bang" is fatally flawed, because "big bang" is a theory, and I'm talking about an attitude, and personal conduct. Attitudes and personalities, as far as I'm aware, aren't time-dependent. It seems outright odd hear a claim that in ancient times, or medival times, or ANY time period, there were only people who were jerks and loudmouths and discented, and that people who were more reserved and respectful could not possibly discent.... as if respectfully discenting was a modern invention. :blink:

#87
Mlai00

Mlai00
  • Members
  • 656 messages
It's like wanting to respectfully dissent that raping 8 year olds is not wrong.

Because that's basically what a godless heathen is, to the medieval mindset.

Elves and dwarves' views are tolerated because they're not human.

Anders is an apostate. And what he's saying is MUCH less radical than "I don't believe there is a Maker."

#88
Swordfishtrombone

Swordfishtrombone
  • Members
  • 4 108 messages

Mlai00 wrote...

It's like wanting to respectfully dissent that raping 8 year olds is not wrong.
Because that's basically what a godless heathen is, to the medieval mindset.


If that is the case, then clearly faerun ISN'T modelled faithfully after a medieval setting; otherwise the dialogue options that ARE there, the offensive, confrontational and insulting rejections of the maker and andraste would lead to outright campaigns by the Chantry to have you arrested, tortured, made to repent, or failing that, killed.

That's what those existing dialogue options would have gotten you in the medieval setting, if the medieval mindset truly is what you claim, and the game is trying to be faithfully medieval.

How does being respectful about declining to participate make things WORSE than declining AND insulting the faith outright? Can you answer me that?

And yet again you refer to the consequences of discent, when I have repeatedly said that the consequences are entirely irrelevant to me. I simply want my character to be a nice guy while discenting, and if that gets him burned at the stake, FINE. Though that'd be really strange, since you can go about insulting the faith and being rude about it without such dire consequences in the game.

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 17 avril 2010 - 05:59 .


#89
Addai

Addai
  • Members
  • 25 850 messages

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

I'd like to add that OF COURSE you had people who respectfully dissented, even in the height of the medival church's power; if it wasn't so, and the loudmouth heretics were tortured and/or killed, how did we ever get OUT of such a situation of church control?

Secularism as a philosphy arose out of liberal Christianity (and Judaism and Islam in other contexts), not in protest of it.

I'm not going to argue history, though.  The point is not that there were such people, but that they didn't go around politely expressing their opinions to semi-strangers.

Anyway, there are plenty of instances in the game where you can express apathy or doubt about the Chantry.  Are we really only arguing about the Lothering Revered Mother dialogue?

#90
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Just like the Church in real life. It never reached the position of actually dominating over kings, but rather cooperatively dealing with certain issues.



Not true. For example the pope was powerful enough to force a German Emperor whose name I unfortunately forgot, at that time the leader of the most powerful nation in Europe, to come to him and beg on his knees for mercy because the pope had excommunicated him and thus stripped him of his right to rule. The lords didn´t follow him anymore until the pope had re-introduced him into the church.


In Ferelden, something like that couldn´t happen. If the Chantry would declare Loghain a heretic he would simply expell them and continue ruling (at least until the good old warden ends his reign:devil:).

#91
Swordfishtrombone

Swordfishtrombone
  • Members
  • 4 108 messages

Addai67 wrote...

Secularism as a philosphy arose out of liberal Christianity (and Judaism and Islam in other contexts), not in protest of it.

I'm not going to argue history, though.  The point is not that there were such people, but that they didn't go around politely expressing their opinions to semi-strangers.

Anyway, there are plenty of instances in the game where you can express apathy or doubt about the Chantry.  Are we really only arguing about the Lothering Revered Mother dialogue?


I'm not advocating dialogue options that have the character recite the atheist manifesto, or quote from Hume or Russell - What I'm wanting is simply an option to not participate in religious stuff, and be nice about it. Nothing more.

I'm SURE there were people who did not go along with religion, but weren't jerks about it, all through history, do you disagree?

As for why I used those particular situations for sparking off this discussion, I'll quote you from an earlier post of mine: (I don't blame you for not reading the whole thread... it can get a bit tedious)

------
"For my first playthorugh, I actually played a character that
WAS religious, though not overtly so, so I didn't pay that much
attention to the lack of the kinds of dialogue options I'm seeing now,
on my second playthrough, when I am trying to play the sort of a person
that's closer to what I'm like in real life. The example from the
chantry at the orzammar city, with two dialogue options so extreme, was
just so striking that I noticed it even though I was playing a religious
character.

That's why only two examples so far - the Lothering
one I noticed now on my second playthrough, and I haven't gone that far
into the game yet. "
-----

#92
Sarah1281

Sarah1281
  • Members
  • 15 280 messages

The point is not that there were such people, but that they didn't go around politely expressing their opinions to semi-strangers.

But when representatives of the Chantry ask for your help or offer you a blessing, most of the time you can only respond eagerly or tell them that their faith is stupid. If you do not wish to aid the Chantry or accept their blessing, do you have to insult them for asking/offering? It's highly unnecessary.

#93
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

Mlai00 wrote...

It's like wanting to respectfully dissent that raping 8 year olds is not wrong.
Because that's basically what a godless heathen is, to the medieval mindset.
Elves and dwarves' views are tolerated because they're not human.
Anders is an apostate. And what he's saying is MUCH less radical than "I don't believe there is a Maker."



No, for fundamentalists the rapist of 8 years old is much less of an abomination than the heathen.
[Sarcasm off]

Anyways, you can respectfully dissent with the rape of 8 year old children.
Like: "I know this is a free country and you have, therefore, the right to do what you want. But I have the same right, and I don´t like rapists, so I´m gonna stop this. Goodbye." [Headshot!!!]

Problem solved. If only we all had a gun in real life....

#94
Swordfishtrombone

Swordfishtrombone
  • Members
  • 4 108 messages
Sarah1281 - I wish I had your tallent for getting to the meat of the issue with just a few sentences. Well said again. :wizard:

#95
Addai

Addai
  • Members
  • 25 850 messages
Why do you consider the one in Orzammar extreme? My Dalish character said "yes well, good luck with that" and walked away. That's not insulting Brother Burkel. Then I did have her go back and agree to help him, since after some thought she was impressed by his statement that the dwarves should at least have the chance to hear a differing view. In talking to the Shaper, both options she had were not "rah rah Chantry." One asked what harm there was in letting him preach, the other was a Cunning option to talk about charity work for the casteless.

In Lothering, she simply said she had nothing to offer. No need to give any lengthy explanation.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 avril 2010 - 06:27 .


#96
Sarah1281

Sarah1281
  • Members
  • 15 280 messages

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Sarah1281 - I wish I had your tallent for getting to the meat of the issue with just a few sentences. Well said again. :wizard:

Thanks. Posted Image

#97
Addai

Addai
  • Members
  • 25 850 messages

Sarah1281 wrote...

The point is not that there were such people, but that they didn't go around politely expressing their opinions to semi-strangers.

But when representatives of the Chantry ask for your help or offer you a blessing, most of the time you can only respond eagerly or tell them that their faith is stupid. If you do not wish to aid the Chantry or accept their blessing, do you have to insult them for asking/offering? It's highly unnecessary.

How often does this happen?  I can only think of Lothering and the priestess in Ostagar, whom you do not need to talk to for any reason.

Edit: I guess I don't see the reason to make a fuss over something that just doesn't seem worth making a fuss over.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 avril 2010 - 06:31 .


#98
Raiil

Raiil
  • Members
  • 4 011 messages
If there is no tolerance for dissenters and heretical views, Leliana would have been burned at the stake. As it was, she openly espoused her beliefs that the Maker has not left, and was mocked for it... but in a rather refreshing state of non-crispiness when we come across her. Alistair, raised deeply in the religion, shows doubt about the Chantry's version of darkspawn (you can ask him for the Chantry's version, and/or the truth) and makes a rude joke about the Maker. And if Ferelden was naturally that pious, I doubt we'd have people hiding the Tears of Andraste... or speaking of Andraste's knickers, for that matter. There is plenty of room for common ground, especiallys since the Andrastian Chantry isn't the only religion in Thedas- hell, it's not the only Chantry in Thedas.

#99
traversc

traversc
  • Members
  • 274 messages

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Mlai00 wrote...

It's like wanting to respectfully dissent that raping 8 year olds is not wrong.
Because that's basically what a godless heathen is, to the medieval mindset.


If that is the case, then clearly faerun ISN'T modelled faithfully after a medieval setting; otherwise the dialogue options that ARE there, the offensive, confrontational and insulting rejections of the maker and andraste would lead to outright campaigns by the Chantry to have you arrested, tortured, made to repent, or failing that, killed.

That's what those existing dialogue options would have gotten you in the medieval setting, if the medieval mindset truly is what you claim, and the game is trying to be faithfully medieval.

How does being respectful about declining to participate make things WORSE than declining AND insulting the faith outright? Can you answer me that?

And yet again you refer to the consequences of discent, when I have repeatedly said that the consequences are entirely irrelevant to me. I simply want my character to be a nice guy while discenting, and if that gets him burned at the stake, FINE. Though that'd be really strange, since you can go about insulting the faith and being rude about it without such dire consequences in the game.



^100%.  Ignore Mlai, he/she is just a troll.  I mean really, there are dialogue options where you all but spit on their faces, and somehow RESPECTFULLY disagreeing is somehow unmentionable?  Logic.  Fail.  Hard. 

Anyway, there are plenty of instances in the game where you can
express apathy or doubt about the Chantry.  Are we really only arguing
about the Lothering Revered Mother dialogue?


Yes, but there are plenty of situations where you CAN'T.  For example, the entire sacred ashes event was badly contrived.  You're either completely reverent of the ashes or an EVIL CULTIST. 

Eh.  Chalk it up to the limitations of tree dialogue, but it does seem like a grave oversight IMNHO. 

#100
KnightofPhoenix

KnightofPhoenix
  • Members
  • 21 527 messages

Tirigon wrote...
In Ferelden, something like that couldn´t happen. If the Chantry would declare Loghain a heretic he would simply expell them and continue ruling (at least until the good old warden ends his reign:devil:).


The Chantry would simply declare an exalted march on Ferelden.

The original point was that the Chantry does have a lot of political power. You claimed that it doesn't.