159 réponses à ce sujet

[Swordfishtrombone]

Addai67 wrote...

It is anachronistic to expect to roleplay a rationalistic philosophy that did not exist in the medieval mindset.

Aside from people pointing out that the game is a fantasy, and not faithfully modelled after Medieval Europe, I'm not asking for a character that argues rationalistic philosophy, quotes Hume or Russel, or is a pastafarian. I JUST want a polite way of declining, without resorting to lies. I really don't think that's anachronistic, OR too much to ask.

How about just answering, in response to the tithe request: "I wish you well, but I don't share your faith, so I'd rather not."

Not an incling of a "rationalistic philosophy" there, right? Just being a nice, honest character with a skeptical attitude towards the Chantry.

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 18 avril 2010 - 07:40 .

[RecklezzRogue]

ditto

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

It is anachronistic to expect to roleplay a rationalistic philosophy that did not exist in the medieval mindset.

Aside from people pointing out that the game is a fantasy, and not faithfully modelled after Medieval Europe, I'm not asking for a character that argues rationalistic philosophy, quotes Hume or Russel, or is a pastafarian. I JUST want a polite way of declining, without resorting to lies. I really don't think that's anachronistic, OR too much to ask.

How about just answering, in response to the tithe request: "I wish you well, but I don't share your faith, so I'd rather not."

Not an incling of a "rationalistic philosophy" there, right? Just being a nice, honest character with a skeptical attitude towards the Chantry.

[UpiH]

Addai67 wrote...

It is anachronistic to expect to roleplay a rationalistic philosophy that did not exist in the medieval mindset.

1. Who says the setting is medieval? What about the Tevinter Imperium/Rome?
2. I'd suggest making acquaintance with Grecian philosophers, for instance. They did exist before the Medieval era - and were known as well.

That is beside the fact that there is a way to refuse to give charity in Lothering- just say you don't have anything to give.  You don't have to tell her why.  You're there to either a) ask her help, in which case are you really going to launch into an explanation on why you don't want to support the work of the Chantry? or intimidate her into helping you, in which case snarky would fit just fine.

I had the idea, the OP didn't want to be a liar either.

[Addai]

UpiH wrote...

1. Who says the setting is medieval? What about the Tevinter Imperium/Rome?
2. I'd suggest making acquaintance with Grecian philosophers, for instance. They did exist before the Medieval era - and were known as well.

I am acquainted, thank you.  The late Roman empire is medieval, and the Byzantine empire (upon which Tevinter is based, I understand) extends into the early modern era.

A rationalistic atheism did not exist in medieval society.  Dragon Age presents this fairly well.  You have various types of dissenters, but to roleplay a Hume-like character would be out of place in the society IMO.

I had the idea, the OP didn't want to be a liar either.

You don't have to explain why you don't have anything- you don't have anything for the Chantry, that's all.  Besides which the worry about the money being used for proselytization seems very cheap considering that a darkspawn horde is descending on this particular Chantry.  I don't think they'll be leading Exalted Marches anytime soon.

Whatever.  It seems like small potatoes for such a big discussion.

Modifié par Addai67, 18 avril 2010 - 07:50 .

[Raiil]

It doesn't have to be rational atheism. Some of my more 'polite' characters aren't ardent Andrastians for a whole variety of reasons and just want a polite way of declining. A middle choice would satisfy those of us who- for whatever reason- don't want to be all MAKER YAY, but also don't want to pee in the Chantry's collective cheerios, either. It might be ambivalence, it might be that a character is being rp'ed in a manner where they realise they're representing an entire group of people and don't want others to look badly on them, they might just be uber-polite. No one is asking for an option wherein the PC breaks down all the reasons why they're not a believer. Just a 'No, but thanks ' is what we're aiming for.

[Addai]

I've had no trouble RPing numerous characters apathetic to the Chantry, or hostile but who for various reasons keep their hostility muted. Just because you don't have every possible dialogue choice covered doesn't mean there's an issue with the game. How these very few instances make for six pages of discussion, I don't get.

[Raiil]

Er... because we're debating?





I don't think any of us who want this option are saying the game is 'broken' or horrible; I mean, we like it enough to register on the boards and chat about it, including what we'd like to see on the future. It's an option and comment on what we'd like to see, not a mandate that the game being fixed this instant or we're going to flounce off.

[Sharkiza]

I didn't really notice what the OP brought up until I played Dalish and Dwarven characters.



Why can't my Dwarf or Elf be nice when discussing the Maker?



Either you completely forget about your own religion and subscribe to a human one, or you're an ass. There is no middle ground.

[Mlai00]

I'm playing a dwarf right now, and sorry I haven't noticed myself being incredibly mean to the Chantry. I'm playing 'indifferent.'

Honestly, how is "I don't have anything to give" so effing bad? I say the same thing when an evangelist comes up to me for the umpteenth time. You want a polite refusal? That is a polite refusal.

How can Gaider phrase every single dialogue option exactly the way you want it? He gave you a 'polite refusal' option.

If you start elaborating "because I don't subscribe to the Chantry faith," without meta-gaming, you're asking to be drawn into a discussion. You know how that goes with religious types, don't you? The answer in the game cuts that possibility off, which is what your chara would want.

And to answer your question, Swordfish... you answer rudely because you're being a rebel, you're spitting at authority, you're asking for a confrontation. Because that is the only social option for an anti-Chanter in those times. The fact that the Chantry don't dare stand up to you is their business, but for you to know that in advance is meta-gaming. And that's why a polite, careful non-believer would avoid the question with an avoidance refusal, rather than a blunt truthful (but polite) refusal.

The writer is telling you: If you want to be non-confrontational, you don't discuss it (in every single instance in the game). Because this is not 2010 Earth.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Mlai00 wrote...

I'm playing a dwarf right now, and sorry I haven't noticed myself being incredibly mean to the Chantry. I'm playing 'indifferent.'
Honestly, how is "I don't have anything to give" so effing bad? I say the same thing when an evangelist comes up to me for the umpteenth time. You want a polite refusal? That is a polite refusal.

Answered, at least twise. Not going to repeat myself a third time.

And to answer your question, Swordfish... you answer rudely because you're being a rebel, you're spitting at authority, you're asking for a confrontation. Because that is the only social option for an anti-Chanter in those times.

What on EARTH do you base that on? Again, I find it an utterly bizarre idea that a respectful attitude for someone who disagrees with the establishment would be a modern invention!

Do you REALLY believe that there were no people in medieval times who disagreed with the church, and were polite about it? That the only people who disagreed with the church must have been loudmouths?

I could easier believe that cows can fly. Politeness is not exclusive to those who go along with the establishment, and it never has been.

[Tirigon]

Mlai00 wrote...

Yes ppl take Andraste's name in vain. Doesn't mean she's not real to them, like gravity and dog hair. The Chant is not a religion/philosophy as you understand it. It's FACT.

It´s not. There is a book in-game suggesting that Andraste was most probably just a very powerful diisident mage.

[Tirigon]

traversc wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

You can defile the ashes AND kill the Cultists and the dragon afterwards. Best way to go ;-)

Yep, but then Wynne and Leliana kill themselves. 

You can avoid Leliana dying by leaving her in camp. And Wynne.... on my current playthrough she didn´t live beyond the tower:devil::devil:

Unfortunately I´m playing a human who believes in the Maker and is totally fond of Andraste, so that sorta sucks....

Regardless of whether you are reverent of the ashes, you are not given the dialogue option to dissent.  Your entire party is like "ZOMG ashes!!1 so amazing."  The fact that you can say nothing to disagree with them (besides poisoning the ashes) CAN be construed as implicitly agreeing.  Of course, you can roleplay whatever you like and pretend that your character simply chooses not to express disagreement.  But you are not given the choice - and that's the entire point of this thread.  Lack of choice. 

Edit: Oh, and whether or not you take the ashes for Redcliffe has nothing to do with the issue.

Many of your team don´t like the ashes.

Sten: Gratulations, you found a waste bin.

[Tirigon]

Addai67 wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Then answer me the question I've asked, and you've ignored - if it is anachronistic to respecfully decline to participate in religious stuff, why is it not anachronistic to be a jerk about it, and decline?

I'm not asking for a change in the content of the refusal, I'm just asking for a way to refuse without being snarky, or purposefully insulting. I really, really don't get your objection to this.

It is anachronistic to expect to roleplay a rationalistic philosophy that did not exist in the medieval mindset.

1) Ferelden isn´t medieval Europe.

2) In medieval Europe there were people who didn´t believe in the Catholic church too, and most of them were polite. The Church wasn´t, but that just proves how religions suck.

[Mlai00]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...
Answered, at least twise. Not going to repeat myself a third time.

It's close enough to a polite refusal that an option as you request is not warranted.  The game's word-count can be better used elsewhere.

What on EARTH do you base that on? Again, I find it an utterly bizarre idea that a respectful attitude for someone who disagrees with the establishment would be a modern invention!

Our notions of secularism vs religion is a modern invention!  In medieval times, "secularism" does not exist.  God is undisputed fact!  The church is the earthly representative of that undisputed fact.  You can't "respectfully disagree" with that.

Do you REALLY believe that there were no people in medieval times who disagreed with the church, and were polite about it? That the only people who disagreed with the church must have been loudmouths?

Not "loudmouths," but people who are egging on for a confrontation, either because they don't believe in the supremacy of God, or for associated political/private reasons.
We know how the church dealt with threat to doctrine.  To voluntarily go against that, you have to be ready for trouble and wanting it.  It's more than that.  The notion that God doesn't exist was absurd.  To espouse it, you have to harbor certain antisocial attitudes to begin with.  You can't be a nice civilized person, well integrated into society, and STILL have developed that thought process.
That goes for humans who grew up in human society.

[Xandurpein]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Mlai00 wrote...

And to answer your question, Swordfish... you answer rudely because you're being a rebel, you're spitting at authority, you're asking for a confrontation. Because that is the only social option for an anti-Chanter in those times.

What on EARTH do you base that on? Again, I find it an utterly bizarre idea that a respectful attitude for someone who disagrees with the establishment would be a modern invention!

A game like DA will always be limited in the number of choices you have to respond. You can always express everything you want. I want to flirt with the barmaid, but there is no dialogue option so I have to get over it. What you are asking for is basically something that (A) very, very few Fereldan's would ever imagine doing and ( would in likelyhood be considered as offensive as an impolite refusal anyway.

[Tirigon]

Mlai00 wrote...

We know how the church dealt with threat to doctrine.  To voluntarily go against that, you have to be ready for trouble and wanting it.  It's more than that.  The notion that God doesn't exist was absurd.  To espouse it, you have to harbor certain antisocial attitudes to begin with.  You can't be a nice civilized person, well integrated into society, and STILL have developed that thought process.
That goes for humans who grew up in human society.

1) You can be elf, mage or dwarf in DAO so this doesn´t apply to them.
2) The notion that god doesn´t exist was common. If it would be absurd the Church hadn´t killed or otherwise silenced anyone voicing it. The fact they did makes me believe the majority of the medieval people didn´t believe in all the Church´s sh!t.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
2) In medieval Europe there were people who didn´t believe in the Catholic church too, and most of them were polite. The Church wasn´t, but that just proves how religions suck.

Like who? How do you know that?

Considering how education was monopolised by the Church in medieval Europe, I doubt anyone would contest it. And even if they did, it would be based on the belief of God and not atheism. 

There is a difference between rejecting some religious insitutions and rejecting the idea of God completely. The OP is confusing the two. You can reject parts of the chantry, Leliena does it and Brother Genitiv somewhat does it. But the idea of atheism, to reject the existence of the Maker (and Andraste) that is considered as fact, is a different thing all together.

The French revolutionaries surely were not polite when they murdered a few thousands priests. I guess that proves secularism sucks? Please, more rational arguments. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 avril 2010 - 03:30 .

[Surango]

Tirigon wrote...

2) The notion that god doesn´t exist was common. If it would be absurd the Church hadn´t killed or otherwise silenced anyone voicing it. The fact they did makes me believe the majority of the medieval people didn´t believe in all the Church´s sh!t.

While in other parts of the world there was a belief in gods (Greek/Roman/Norse) and not one singular entity, the "civilized world" of Europe at the time actually had a common belief system in God. If you can prove this wrong, I'd like to see your sources. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or haughty, I'd really like to know.

[Raiil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
2) In medieval Europe there were people who didn´t believe in the Catholic church too, and most of them were polite. The Church wasn´t, but that just proves how religions suck.

Like who? How do you know that?

Considering how education was monopolised by the Church in medieval Europe, I doubt anyone would contest it. And even if they did, it would be based on the belief of God and not atheism. 

There is a difference between rejecting some religious insitutions and rejecting the idea of God completely. The OP is confusing the two. You can reject parts of the chantry, Leliena does it and Brother Genitiv somewhat does it. But the idea of atheism, to reject the existence of the Maker (and Andraste) that is considered as fact, is a different thing all together.

The French revolutionaries surely were not polite when they murdered a few thousands priests. I guess that proves secularism sucks? Please, more rational arguments. 

Well, regarding groups who rejected Catholic doctrine (in a way that people noticed):

Cathars- 11-13th century. Doctrine varied within the movement, but many held dualistic beliefs, and rejected being part of the Roman Catholic Church. Many were ascetics.

Adoptionists- still around today, no conclusive date of formation, believed that Jesus was conceived and born via traditional methods.

Lollardi- precursors to the Reformation in England. Anti-clerical in general, directly challenged the Church verbally. 

Arianism- that Jesus/Son of God is inherently inferior to God/The Father.

All of these groups, and there are more, never lifted a finger against the main church at the time as a whole. The Cathars were essentially exterminated, Adoptionism has fluctuated, the Lollardy have been replaced/absorbed into the Protestant movement.

As some of us have already said, there doesn't 'need' to be an atheist answer. What we want is a 'respectfully declining' answer that can cover anyone who is playing an atheist, a heretic (other than Leliana, because FFS those of us who do roll one do not necessarily agree with her line of thinking or share her enthusasim), someone from another religion, or someone who is apathetic, but who has manners. Not one of us is demanding ten page scripts of why we're not donating. <_<

[KnightofPhoenix]

Valentia X wrote...
Well, regarding groups who rejected Catholic doctrine (in a way that people noticed):

Cathars- 11-13th century. Doctrine varied within the movement, but many held dualistic beliefs, and rejected being part of the Roman Catholic Church. Many were ascetics.

Adoptionists- still around today, no conclusive date of formation, believed that Jesus was conceived and born via traditional methods.

Lollardi- precursors to the Reformation in England. Anti-clerical in general, directly challenged the Church verbally. 

Arianism- that Jesus/Son of God is inherently inferior to God/The Father.

All of these groups, and there are more, never lifted a finger against the main church at the time as a whole. The Cathars were essentially exterminated, Adoptionism has fluctuated, the Lollardy have been replaced/absorbed into the Protestant movement.

But they did not reject God, or Jesus. Their rejection og the Catholic Church was based on Christian discourse, that's what I meant. The idea of God and Jesus being sent by God (regarldes of how) was seen as fact. You could not oppose the Church in an atheist fashion in the middle ages with a respectful tone and expect to be seen as normal.

The post I was responding to claimed that there were many Atheists and that they were polite in the middle ages.

BTW, Arianism was not in the middle age, but in late Antiquity.  

EDIT: Wait wait wait. I realised I might have misread what the post I responsded to said.

Yes, people did reject Catholic doctrine, but it was with a Christian discourse and not atheist. Eh, looks like I started confusing the two as well.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 avril 2010 - 05:13 .

[Raiil]

It happens.





What I'm saying is not whether we need an atheist response. I think having a response somewhere between GO ANDRASTE and **** YOUR GOD would be nice, which would cover, as I've said, atheists, heretics, and other non-adherents to standard Andrastian ways. OP and I want it for similar reasons, mainly RP, even if we roll two different sorts of characters generally.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The French revolutionaries surely were not polite when they murdered a few thousands priests. I guess that proves secularism sucks? Please, more rational arguments. 

No, but it proves that the French revolution, or at least that part of it, sucked.

[Tirigon]

God is something you can believe in - or not - it´s not something that is, or ever was, a fact.



Also we should note that the medieval Church is not really following the path Jesus wanted for his followerrs; Jesus preached of love, hope and redemption. He never said anything on the lines of "The jews murdered me; kill them all" or "Burn all witches and heretics" or "Conquer the holy land".

[Xandurpein]

Tirigon wrote...

God is something you can believe in - or not - it´s not something that is, or ever was, a fact.

Also we should note that the medieval Church is not really following the path Jesus wanted for his followerrs; Jesus preached of love, hope and redemption. He never said anything on the lines of "The jews murdered me; kill them all" or "Burn all witches and heretics" or "Conquer the holy land".

I know there are no lines for it in the game, but you could try and play a respectful atheist anyway....

[Tirigon]

I prefer playing the combative atheist who tells the templars how much their maker sucks, always hoping they´ll give him a reason to behead them.



Yea, I don´t like templars.