41 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

NICE-N-EVIL wrote...

In the same vein as Dungeons and Dragons?

I highly doubt that, since Thedas setting is alignment-free.

Justice mentions there is generally a belief amongst spirits that there is something beyond the Fade, though it is unknown what. Although Justice also is not certain if it really exists, or if such a belief was drawn from the dreams and beliefs of the mortals they encounter.

So it wouldn't be anything like the Planes in D&D.

[NICE-N-EVIL]

whew! I was worried that it followed the old D&D concept. But it seems more and more evident that the Fade is simply put, a dream world where entities are formed based on the attachement of Thedas world.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

That's about as good a general summary as any, given what little we know about it. The closest you would get to D&D would be the Astral Plane, being a realm shaped entirely through thought, will, dream, and memory. It is a world/realm that is as real as the physical one, but it follows a completely different set of laws of physics and reality.



My own theory as to the nature of spirits and demons goes as such: spirits, by their nature, are attracted to the dreams, emotions, and memories of mortals that dream. In their purest form, they have no aspects to them, just being raw bits of sentient energy. The first ideal or emotion they manage to latch onto is what forms their natures/basic personas.



it is said a few times in game, through codexes and conversation, that spirits seek to immitate and emmulate things from the human consciousness. The ideas of morality/good and evil do not play a part in which idea they emulate, since they are "neutral" in their original state. They simply need to copy and immitate what they find, and likely, the first or most powerful emotion they encounter is what they will become (i.e. Sloth Demon, spirit of Faith, ect).



Justice states his name is more a matter of the ideal he aspires to. The concept of Justice/karma was probably the first human-created concept he came in contact with, and because it held enough power to attract him, he formed himself into this pure ideal. It's a shame we get so very little of him, and get him so late, as I would have loved to learn more about spirits in general and their existance.

[Dayshadow]

Glaucon wrote...

Transcendentalism aside, our direct experience cannot in and of itself be used to validate an argument.  To do that, we must agree on a consistent method for testing those experiences scientifically.  Multi-verse theories add to this problem and to my mind are entrenched in the metaphysical camp.

Why can't their be a consistent method for astral projection? 

Glaucon wrote...

I trust by faith that you mean a confidence in another's evidence.  And it is evidence that an argument puts forth to support its creators belief.  From an epistemological perspective I wonder what you mean when you say: "In the same manner, if I believe in astral projection but have never bothered to learn how to do it myself my belief is just faith.", as this would reduce knowledge to the confines of personal experience and is clearly not how we learn.

Not if I'm astral projecting with 10 other people and we can all recall what occured. The experience ceases to be personal.  If I can furthermore go to sleep in one building, travel metaphysically into another building, listen to a conversation and then report it back to the people in that other building once I wake up, the total experience, in this case, is not personal. 

In the same line of thinking, I could dismiss a scientist's research into radioactive carbon dating as his personal experience IF I choose to not to take the necessary steps to investigate for myself.  Maybe I have a low IQ and just can't get how this carbon dating thingie works. Maybe I'm lazy and not willing to put in the time and effort to understand it. But I can't simply dismiss his work as being limited to "his personal experience" without any further potential.  It is, from my perspective, but it doesn't have to be. 

Glaucon wrote...
Furthermore, one's experience is untrustworthy, this is why experiments operate with evidence to support arguments.  Where you claim it to be belief that the Sun is a burning ball of Hydrogen or that the current scientific understanding makes an equal claim, and is equally belief, to that I cannot agree.  The former is a singular experience, heavily weighted by any collated prejudice.  The latter is a formal statement objectively arrived at with consistent agreed upon and continuing experimentation.   

The problem here is that you have already accepted that the supposed scientific evidence is, in fact, evidence.  Unless you possess the know how and means to acquire this evidence from scratch it amounts to nothing more than a claim.  I once had a discussion with a muslim gentleman.  He said the Quran must be interpreted a certain way because a particular scholar came to a particular conclusion. The scholar is appearently an expert.  The problem with this line of thinking is that, if the muslim in question lacks the means to come to his own conclusions, how can he validate the assertions of anyone else. He, through his own knowledge and intellect, would have to be able come to the same conclusion as the scholar in order to know that the scholars interpretation is correct.

So my question to you is, do you have intimate from-the-ground-up knowledge of the processes from which the evidence of the Sun's composite is based on?  Or did you just read about it in a book and decided to accept that what you read is truth because it was written by an so-called expert? 

[Dayshadow]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Your definition of Faith is a broad one, and I do not agree that it is a matter of faith taking the observations of scientists as fact.

Faith is where someone tells me that the sun is a ball of burning gases, and wants me to believe that it is a ball of burning gases because they said so, or they have had visions saying as much, without giving a series of rational or emperical reasons why this is so. It would be an act of faith to believe that this is what the sun is simply because someone tells me to believe it. And, even when confronted with observations and evidence to the contrary, you still choose to believe the sun is made of gases even though there might be strong evidence to the contrary.

That's not faith. That is what I'd consider abject stupidity or blind belief.  I personally cannot consider that faith.

I have faith that it is going to rain if the clouds get dark, the air has that watery scent and I hear thunder on the horizon. I have faith that when I come home after work my power will still be on.  I have faith that Mass Effect 3 will be an enjoyable game.  Faith is believing in something without proof, BUT having a legitimate reason to have confidence in that something.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Science is where someone tells you the sun is made of burning gases, then gives you a list of consistant observations and collected evidence as to why they have come to this conclusion, and then provides you with evidence as to why this conclusion has been reached. Evidence and observations, which can be repeated by any observer, no matter what their initial thoughts are, and still reach the same or similar conclusion.

What is a rational empirical reason to believe that the sun is a ball of burning hydrogen?

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Rejecting a theory just because it seems to be drawn from religion is...sadly typical. *shrug*

Uuuhhhh...no. I reject it because there are better explainations to the question than the religous ones. Seeing how religion does not have the greatest track record regarding independant and rational thiniing or analysis, I shall favor theories that at least have some basis drawn from reality.

Keep in mind my response was prompted as much by this:

NICE-N-EVIL wrote...

I agree and would personnally prefer the blank slate becoming an entity than the usual demons from the Bible concept

as it was by this:

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Generally, I reject the Chantry theory, which is closer to a Bible explaination than a Thedas one.

To me, both responses sound like Chantry theory isn't even worth considering because people deem it relates to RL religious views (both people cited 'Bible'). I included them in my post not because I think they're right or true or accurate, but because there's a lot of game lore there relating to demons and spirits--which is what I thought we were discussing. It's all well and good having a discussion which is based on little but player conjecture, but I rather thought entertaining other views that come from the game itself might be worth a small glance.

I hope you can understand why the responses I received made me raise my brows.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

To me, both responses sound like Chantry theory isn't even worth considering because people deem it relates to RL religious views (both people cited 'Bible'). I included them in my post not because I think they're right or true or accurate, but because there's a lot of game lore there relating to demons and spirits--which is what I thought we were discussing. It's all well and good having a discussion which is based on little but player conjecture, but I rather thought entertaining other views that come from the game itself might be worth a small glance.

I hope you can understand why the responses I received made me raise my brows.

Yes. Because there are so many similarities between the Chantry and medieval Church. Including a tendancy towards omissions, biased writings, and condemnation/supression of opposing views.

There are both Chantry-and non-Chantry based lore bits in game, and if you read the Codexes written by Chantry people, it's pretty clear on several (the history of the elves being a good example) that the person writing is incredibly biased/favors the Chantry. But there are some codexes written outside of the Chantry, that give a more neutral/balanced perspective.

I take anything written by religous organizations with a grain of salt, because religous organizations tend to promote/foster ideas so long as they agree with or enforce standing religous dogma. Or, in extreme cases, promote ideals completely divorced from reason and simple observation. Thus, unless outside sources corroberate and re-inforce something coming from a religous authority, I will tend to look elsewhere for a better explaination. Especially when it is in regards to something like the Fade.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

A better example of my position is general in-game references and counters to the Chantry account of things.



In a conversation with Leliana, Morrigan scoffs at her belief in the Maker. She points out that she has been in the Fade a few times, and did not find it full of miserable, damned souls wandering aimlessly, as the Chantry states they should be. This is an example of a non-Chantry observation that is shared by others who have been to the Fade and made similar observations (mages, mainly). Though it seems that the dead probably do go to the Fade (some, at least), belief or unbelief in a Maker-type higher power does not seem to determine their fate.



Chantry studies seem aimed at actively seeking confirmation of their dogma, and rejection of anything that might counter-act that. part of me wonders if that is one of the reasons they imprison mages and keep such a tight leash on them, as well as their demonization of elven beliefs/culture.

[Ymladdych]

Something of interest from "Witch Hunt" (***SPOILER ALERT***):

When your team first finds the statue in the Tower, she's crazy and distraught from tears in the Veil. She says something like, "The prison has been breached. The darkness approaches."

Once the tears are repaired, she states that the darkness has receded, for now. Which, to me, implies that "the prison" is either this world or the Fade. (For those who don't already know but don't care about spoilers, the statue was a powerful Tevinter seer who was cursed to stone.)

A little thing that might not mean much, but you never know.

***Edit: Ugh, formatting again.

Modifié par Ymladdych, 16 décembre 2010 - 03:44 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

To me, both responses sound like Chantry theory isn't even worth considering because people deem it relates to RL religious views (both people cited 'Bible'). I included them in my post not because I think they're right or true or accurate, but because there's a lot of game lore there relating to demons and spirits--which is what I thought we were discussing. It's all well and good having a discussion which is based on little but player conjecture, but I rather thought entertaining other views that come from the game itself might be worth a small glance.

I hope you can understand why the responses I received made me raise my brows.

Yes. Because there are so many similarities between the Chantry and medieval Church. Including a tendancy towards omissions, biased writings, and condemnation/supression of opposing views.

I am not disagreeing with any of this. What I'm saying is that it's worth looking at *all* the text on demons/spirits so there's something to compare the other views with. For the sake of *completeness*. Examining biased writings can still shed light.

(Not that we'll ever know the real deal until the devs tell us, but anyway...)

But there are some codexes written outside of the Chantry, that give a more neutral/balanced perspective.

The Chantry (presumably) has an agenda. But you have no way of knowing these so-called neutral/balanced perspectives don't come from a source that has his/her own prejudices (or mental instability).

Being outside the Chantry is no guarantee of being a more reliable source, just a *different* source.

I take anything written by religous organizations with a grain of salt[...]

Taking something with a grain of salt means you actually consider what is presented, albeit carefully and cautiously in the belief some or all of what you're reading is amiss in some way. That's not the same as dismissing something entirely.

As this is a game, I don't intend to be quite that thorough. Like I said, I presented the Chantry version because it hadn't already been, and I thought the more game material we could work with the more debate could be had. If Chantry codices are rejected simply because they're written by people from a fictional organised religion, so be it.

(Edit: I really don't care if you like the Chantry or not. I am neutral towards it, personally. I certainly don't take everything they say at face value. But I consider their views interesting to discuss because it's bloody game lore, same as everything else )

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 16 décembre 2010 - 12:43 .

[Ymladdych]

I've noticed a couple of "Is there gonna be a twist?!" threads in the DA2 section.

I'd LMAO if the big "twist" was a revelation that the Chantry had the important parts right all along.

@Shadow of Light Dragon: What you're seeing is the result of generalized biases, and even if most people will logically say, "Well, no it's not always true. Yes, I can think of cases where it wouldn't be true..." pretty much everyone still makes errors in judgment based on simple heuristics they may not even be aware of.

The most famous one with all the supporting research would be "Beauty is good." Which is why I think Flemeth gets the raw deal from most players; I don't think we see any substantial evidence that she's better or worse than Morrigan, but she's an old, ugly hag, right? *Of course* she's The Bad Guy!

But here are some others that are coming into play when people judge the Chantry:

"Big establishment" = bad || "Underdog" = good
"Lies" = bad || "Truth" = good
"Restriction/Control" = bad || "Freedom" = good

You'll never get people to recognize when they're tapping into this way of thinking, either. It's something they need to do for themselves.

***Edit:  Formatting.  Everything I type here comes out ugly.    Why is that?!

Modifié par Ymladdych, 16 décembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


I am not disagreeing with any of this. What I'm saying is that it's worth looking at *all* the text on demons/spirits so there's something to compare the other views with. For the sake of *completeness*. Examining biased writings can still shed light.

(Not that we'll ever know the real deal until the devs tell us, but anyway...)


The Chantry (presumably) has an agenda. But you have no way of knowing these so-called neutral/balanced perspectives don't come from a source that has his/her own prejudices (or mental instability).

Being outside the Chantry is no guarantee of being a more reliable source, just a *different* source.

Oh, I'm aware of this. And am pretty good at sniffing out where parts of religous texts start with some fact, that becomes more distorted. Non-Chantry sources would inevitably also be biased. However, one can find truth from looking for common agreement between sources or direct observation.

When one understands the motives/agenda of a certain bias, one can better determine fact and BS.

Taking something with a grain of salt means you actually consider what is presented, albeit carefully and cautiously in the belief some or all of what you're reading is amiss in some way. That's not the same as dismissing something entirely.

Which is what I did do. I looked at the Chantry version, and then other sources and versions, plus personal obswervations and experiences in game, and decided the Chantry was, for the most part, full of crap. The Chantry accounts might be good for certain historical references or familiarity with subject matter, but in the broader sense of things, it lacks greatly, and makes me suspect and dismiss most of what it dishes out.

Sort of like reading the World Weekly News. You know that 99% of the "articles" and "news" is pure BS, brain rotting nonsense. Though occasionally, it does actually contain a genuone article.

(Edit: I really don't care if you like the Chantry or not. I am neutral towards it, personally. I certainly don't take everything they say at face value. But I consider their views interesting to discuss because it's bloody game lore, same as everything else )

As far as my own personal opinions regarding religion in the real world, I am apathetic and really don't care what people believe, so long as religion remains a personal, subjective practice and experience, and does not try and extend itself to the objective realities of science, politics, and social systems. The Chantry does all of the above, so naturally I shall hold it in contempt, as it exerts a ridiculous amount of power over damn near everything in Thedas. Like the medieval Church did.

And the Fade and magic in DA are part of the "science" of the setting, and are of alot of interest to me. In fact, the most interesting part of it. The Chantry has a damned-near monopoly on access and research of the fade, since the qunari leash and mutilate mages, and dwarves can't do magic. Thus, I see the Chantry as a major block in trying to study and learn more about the Fade, the true nature of spirits, the full powers of lyrium, and of course, the enigmatic Black City.

[NICE-N-EVIL]

I agree with you...re: Fade is the science part of the setting within Dragon Age. Again to be be on topic, there seems to be more evidence about the spirits "coming alive" from the human psyche as opposed the chantry version of "spiritual creations" as implied in the bible as we know it today and past.



Really, it depends on David Gaider.....will he ever tell us the truth? Did he create a unique fantasy universe transcendent from imaginitive genius or did he "copy/paste" the theme as found in the judeo-christian belief? The origins of the spirits lies within the answer.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ymladdych wrote...
You'll never get people to recognize when they're tapping into this way of thinking, either. It's something they need to do for themselves.

Yeah. Stupid me for trying, I suppose.  

[Ymladdych]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Ymladdych wrote...
You'll never get people to recognize when they're tapping into this way of thinking, either. It's something they need to do for themselves.

Yeah. Stupid me for trying, I suppose.  

Nah...

You put some good info out there for people to review, and you're right: when theorycrafting about DA existential reality, there's no logical reason to discount the Chantry's lore.  I don't care how corrupt they are; I don't care how much they leverage for their own power; I don't care if they're wrong about 1,000,001 other things.  None of it means that they're wrong about the origins of the Fade and its spirits/demons.  And, based on what we empirically "know" so far, it's just as valid a hypothesis as any of the others.  Their teachings might be completely disproven over time, but the game hasn't given us that type of information yet.

You've made a great case to this effect, and your efforts will result in some people being more open-minded about the possibilities, but I just didn't want to see you get sucked into a timesink where you're debating with other forumites who've made their judgment call and aren't going to be swayed from it.  That's the sort of thing that *will* make you stop trying, and that's not good...we need more posters who are willing to post the less-popular-but-equally-valid points of view.