228 réponses à ce sujet

[CrimsonZephyr]

Addai67 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Politics corrupts everything it touches.  Mix politics and religion, and religion gets corrupted.  The outcome is both inevitable and unfortunate.

I'm not anti-religion.  Very pro-religion, in fact, some might say too much for my own good.  That doesn't change the accuracy of the above statements.  Mixing religious authority and civil power has historically not gone well.  The inevitable result is that religious leaders become less concerned with their faith and more concerned with temporal power.

Civil power alone cannot hold back corruption.  It is better if power is centered in more than one place, so that the institutions can check each other.  How everyone thinks the monarchies and oligarchies of Thedas will be so much better without a Chantry counterbalance is amusing. 

Considering how the Chantry rarely interferes unless Chantry interests are threatened, I can't see how these monarchies and oligarchies would be much worse. And if the Chantry has more people like Petrice and Meredith in their ranks, depriving them of their own private armies is probably a good thing.

Saying that the Chantry is a counterbalance is like saying that corporations should have troops to counter the power of the state. If a separation of power exists, it should be a separation of civil authority, but with civil supremacy over everything else, not entirely different and contradictory powers (temporal, religious, corporate) having legal authority over one another.

And if you're using the 13-15th century RCC as an example of religion with positive power...perhaps you should rethink your argument. The Protestant Reformation happened for a reason, after all. The Catholic Church of the era was ludicrously corrupt, rivaling, and surpassing many governments in their depravity. Not only that, but the "church as a source of knowledge" argument falls apart when you consider that it forbade the translation of the Bible into the local vernacular. Once vulgate translations started popping up, and the print press became common, that's when knowledge started to flourish, but the church did as much to hinder the pursuit of knowledge as they did to preserve it.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 04 novembre 2011 - 08:36 .

[Gervaise]

As with the local Chantries and the Divine in Orlais, please do not equate the entire Catholic Church with the title "ludicrously corrupt". The Papacy went through a bad patch and largely because it became too embroiled in politics. Luther succeeded in his rebellion because he managed to get various civil rulers on his side, who liked the idea they could be independent of Church sanctions. When people took his views to their logical conclusion and rose up against their rulers, Luther actually approved of their revolt being supressed by violence. Henry VIII got his title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope for speaking out against Luther. Then someone told Henry he didn't have to listen to the Pope any more (which Thomas Moore said was a very bad idea since the last thing you want to do is tell a monarch no one but God has the right to tell him what to do) . Then he got rid of the religious institutions that objected to his plan and bought off the nobles with the land he got as a result. When the ordinary people of the North objected to him getting rid of the faith they had followed for the last 1200 odd years and rose in rebellion, he tricked their leaders into calling it off and then butchered them in reprisal. Part of the reason they had been so upset was that much of the social welfare of the ordinary people had been carried out by the monasteries. During the earlier "Dark Ages" much knowledge would have been lost without the monasteries. It was the threatened sanctions of the Church which often kept civil rulers in check. The biggest problem with that later period was that religion and politics were too closely intertwined and faith was used as an excuse for violent political action. It was now treason to have a different faith to that of your monarch.

Still I am aware that these forums are not meant to reference real religion in their debates or risk getting shut down, so I will hold my peace and ask you do the same.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Gervaise wrote...

As with the local Chantries and the Divine in Orlais, please do not equate the entire Catholic Church with the title "ludicrously corrupt". The Papacy went through a bad patch and largely because it became too embroiled in politics. Luther succeeded in his rebellion because he managed to get various civil rulers on his side, who liked the idea they could be independent of Church sanctions. When people took his views to their logical conclusion and rose up against their rulers, Luther actually approved of their revolt being supressed by violence. Henry VIII got his title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope for speaking out against Luther. Then someone told Henry he didn't have to listen to the Pope any more (which Thomas Moore said was a very bad idea since the last thing you want to do is tell a monarch no one but God has the right to tell him what to do) . Then he got rid of the religious institutions that objected to his plan and bought off the nobles with the land he got as a result. When the ordinary people of the North objected to him getting rid of the faith they had followed for the last 1200 odd years and rose in rebellion, he tricked their leaders into calling it off and then butchered them in reprisal. Part of the reason they had been so upset was that much of the social welfare of the ordinary people had been carried out by the monasteries. During the earlier "Dark Ages" much knowledge would have been lost without the monasteries. It was the threatened sanctions of the Church which often kept civil rulers in check. The biggest problem with that later period was that religion and politics were too closely intertwined and faith was used as an excuse for violent political action. It was now treason to have a different faith to that of your monarch.

Still I am aware that these forums are not meant to reference real religion in their debates or risk getting shut down, so I will hold my peace and ask you do the same.

Look, if we're going to consider a religious institution as a political entity, we're going to have to look at the whole thing, not just one priest, not just one local church, and while the Catholic Church is a more benevolent institution now, back then, it was the definition of corrupt, what with bribery, extortion, and nepotism being rampant and no one even pretending that things were any different. Henry VIII was just as bad because he was just as corrupt. And it was always treasonous to have a different faith than the norm in those days. Instead of Catholicism, it was Anglicanism or Puritanism that was the normative faith.

My point was that you can't have separate institutions with contradictory and at times blatantly adversarial goals acting as checks to one another within the same government. That's at the heart of civil strife. Its the distinction that separates a faction from being a separate power and a loyal opposition. The Church, as an institution, did not keep the monarchs in check because they cared about the people instrinsically. If they did, they would not have been nearly as ruthless to the people under their own dominion. They kept monarchs in check because monarchs and their subjects gave huge contributions that filled the coffers of the papal elite. With rebelling monarchs, that's a loss of power to the papacy.

[Addai]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
And if you're using the 13-15th century RCC as an example of religion with positive power...perhaps you should rethink your argument. The Protestant Reformation happened for a reason, after all. The Catholic Church of the era was ludicrously corrupt, rivaling, and surpassing many governments in their depravity. Not only that, but the "church as a source of knowledge" argument falls apart when you consider that it forbade the translation of the Bible into the local vernacular. Once vulgate translations started popping up, and the print press became common, that's when knowledge started to flourish, but the church did as much to hinder the pursuit of knowledge as they did to preserve it.

Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about.  Maybe you should read up on use of religion in 16th century Geneva or Tudor England, and/or any book at all about the medieval period that wasn't written by a Reformation polemicist.  For instance, the church only forbade the translation of the Bible as a response to the Reformation, and in part because translations were being used as a political vehicle.  There were a number of translations authorized and made by the RCC very early on (see for instance the Silver Bible).  The bolded phrase just makes me shake my head... where to even begin...

I do grant that the Chantry is its own entity and doesn't make a one to one comparison to RL history.  But in Origins they did a pretty good job, for instance with Brother Genitivi and the two sisters arguing in Denerim and the archivist in Denerim.  You see the Chantry educating people and raising orphans.  There were some more nuanced presentation of Andrastians.  Like I said upthread, I think they tried this with Sebastian and Elthina, but IMO those two fail pretty hard.  As a result, DA2 was a much flatter, more extreme presentation.

[DKJaigen]

Addai67 wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
And if you're using the 13-15th century RCC as an example of religion with positive power...perhaps you should rethink your argument. The Protestant Reformation happened for a reason, after all. The Catholic Church of the era was ludicrously corrupt, rivaling, and surpassing many governments in their depravity. Not only that, but the "church as a source of knowledge" argument falls apart when you consider that it forbade the translation of the Bible into the local vernacular. Once vulgate translations started popping up, and the print press became common, that's when knowledge started to flourish, but the church did as much to hinder the pursuit of knowledge as they did to preserve it.

Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about.  Maybe you should read up on use of religion in 16th century Geneva or Tudor England, and/or any book at all about the medieval period that wasn't written by a Reformation polemicist.  For instance, the church only forbade the translation of the Bible as a response to the Reformation, and in part because translations were being used as a political vehicle.  There were a number of translations authorized and made by the RCC very early on (see for instance the Silver Bible).  The bolded phrase just makes me shake my head... where to even begin...

Your missing his point. The reason why protestants translated the bible was to make sure everybody knew what was in it. Keeping the people ignorant of whats in the bible has been the RCC main objective because then nobody could refute their words.

I do grant that the Chantry is its own entity and doesn't make a one to one comparison to RL history.  But in Origins they did a pretty good job, for instance with Brother Genitivi and the two sisters arguing in Denerim and the archivist in Denerim.  You see the Chantry educating people and raising orphans.  There were some more nuanced presentation of Andrastians.  Like I said upthread, I think they tried this with Sebastian and Elthina, but IMO those two fail pretty hard.  As a result, DA2 was a much flatter, more extreme presentation.

[Addai]

@DJKaigen- And you obviously have no more idea about the subject than he did. It was considered a parish priest's duty to teach people the psalms and the Our Father, even in times and places where Latin became the language of the liturgy. That was considered a minimum obligation, meaning they could go beyond. Whatever education there was in the Middle Ages was there because the church provided it.  Including early universities.  There were some vernacular translations, and these were used as oral teaching methods. Most people could not read. Printing presses did not exist. The people who had time and incentive to make and use manuscripts could read Latin and sometimes Greek or Hebrew. Most languages did not even have a literary standard- dialects were extremely local. You couldn't have an "English" Bible because there was no such thing as "English." And there was little incentive to make manuscript translations for hundreds of dialects. Teaching was done orally- through magnificent works of art, through theater, and in catechism- because it was efficient, not because ZOMG the RCC was evil.

Really, if people are going to argue about the Chantry based purely on anti-Catholicism, that is just sad. But at least know what you're talking about.

Modifié par Addai67, 04 novembre 2011 - 11:07 .

[Zanallen]

In my experience, gamers on average tend to be against religion. Bioware doesn't have to vilify the chantry. Their audience will do it for them.

[dragonflight288]

My opinion is that Bioware isn't anti-Chantry or pro-Chantry. They are presenting all these factions in the world, with good and bad people in each one, with their own goals. We the players interpret what we see.

The problem in DA2 was presentation and a rushed job at the end.

[The dead fish]

Zanallen wrote...

In my experience, gamers on average tend to be against religion. Bioware doesn't have to vilify the chantry. Their audience will do it for them.

I agree with that.

But I also believe that those who hate religion speak louder than the others who have no personal opinions or like the chantry. And for the audience, I prefer the word " bsn ",  I haven't seen this kind of intolerant behavior outside. 

In any case, people do not use the prejudices of the real world when it comes to talking about facts in a game.

Otherwise I thought the chantry was well portrayed in DAO, and in DA2, I wasn't offended, since there are many other things about the game which were much more important and really offended me at the time. I have not had time to worry about that..

Modifié par Sylvianus, 05 novembre 2011 - 01:55 .

[dragonflight288]

I personally am quite religious in real life, but I like role-playing non believers like Thorin Aeducan or skeptics like Aaron Amell.

Adds quite a nice dynamic to the game. And that's all I'm going to say on the topic of religion not related to a fictional world.

[The dead fish]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I personally am quite religious in real life, but I like role-playing non believers like Thorin Aeducan or skeptics like Aaron Amell.

Adds quite a nice dynamic to the game. And that's all I'm going to say on the topic of religion not related to a fictional world.

And that's cool. I like role-playing believers and non believers, myself, or haters ( in the game ).  It depends.

But I admit, I prefer role-playing fanatics.

[dragonflight288]

But I admit, I prefer role-playing fanatics.

lol. It would be fun to play a fanatic Qunari of whatever race that destorys both sides of the war.

[Zanallen]

Personally, I don't care about the Chantry. It is the major religion of Thedas and has some parallels to Christianity. Some of my companions like it. Some don't. Some of my characters like it. Some don't. I have similar opinions about the elven pantheon, the old gods and the Qun.

[Heimdall]

Addai67 wrote...

@DJKaigen- And you obviously have no more idea about the subject than he did. It was considered a parish priest's duty to teach people the psalms and the Our Father, even in times and places where Latin became the language of the liturgy. That was considered a minimum obligation, meaning they could go beyond. Whatever education there was in the Middle Ages was there because the church provided it.  Including early universities.  There were some vernacular translations, and these were used as oral teaching methods. Most people could not read. Printing presses did not exist. The people who had time and incentive to make and use manuscripts could read Latin and sometimes Greek or Hebrew. Most languages did not even have a literary standard- dialects were extremely local. You couldn't have an "English" Bible because there was no such thing as "English." And there was little incentive to make manuscript translations for hundreds of dialects. Teaching was done orally- through magnificent works of art, through theater, and in catechism- because it was efficient, not because ZOMG the RCC was evil.

Really, if people are going to argue about the Chantry based purely on anti-Catholicism, that is just sad. But at least know what you're talking about.

While religion was heavily supportive of education early on, he isn't entirely wrong.  Most people could not read, true.  Most people also could not understand Latin, which was how Mass was given typically.  There was actually "English" in that time period, just no standardized spelling.  Which, yes, made things very confusing and inconvienent for anyone attempting to write or read anything.  The Catholic church did make little effort to translate the bible for the masses though, and indeed forbid it.  That was one of the beliefs of Luther, that people should read the bible for themselves instead of eating up whatever was preached to them.  I'm not anti-Catholic, but I'm not going to put on rosy glasses.  The Church was resistant to new ideas, as most established institutions tend to be.  That being said, the sciences had a link to the church well into relatively recent times.  Darwin trained as a clergymen (He dropped out of medical school first, becoming a surgeon before the days of anesthesia is not for the faint of heart) and at the time it was still a trend for clergymen to study the natural world as scientists.  Mendel, the father of the foundations of modern genetic sciences, did all his work by studying the plants in his garden in the Abbey while he was an Augustine Friar.  To say that the church discouraged the pursuit of knowledge would be a fallacy, but is would also be one to say the church was accepting of challenging ideas.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 05 novembre 2011 - 02:15 .

[The dead fish]

dragonflight288 wrote...

But I admit, I prefer role-playing fanatics.

lol. It would be fun to play a fanatic Qunari of whatever race that destorys both sides of the war.

Haha I prefer Tal Vashots, more chaotic and more interesting from the perspective where I can destroy everything for my own pleasure and not simply for the qun.

But I confess that the prospect of destroying all is lovely ! I would gladly have destroyed Kirkwall and all its inhabitants to calm everyone. But Bioware didn't allow me to do that.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 05 novembre 2011 - 02:17 .

[dragonflight288]

The church didn't like the idea that Earth rotated around the sun. They wanted the sun to rotate earth. lol.

Anyone can be wrong about something.

[dragonflight288]

Haha I prefer Tal Vashots, more chaotic and more interesting from the perspective where I can destroy everything for my own pleasure and not simply for the qun.

But I confess that the prospect of destroying all is lovely ! I would gladly have destroyed Kirkwall and all its inhabitants to calm everyone. But Bioware didn't allow me to do that. smilie

Ever consider playing Black and White 2? It's for the PC. You play a God and lead a tribe of people. You can be a God of War and Destruction or a God of Peace and Culture. What do you raise your people to be?

You can destroy everything if you like, or you can be as peaceful and charitable as you like, or anything in between.

[The dead fish]

Zanallen wrote...

Personally, I don't care about the Chantry. It is the major religion of Thedas and has some parallels to Christianity. Some of my companions like it. Some don't. Some of my characters like it. Some don't. I have similar opinions about the elven pantheon, the old gods and the Qun.

Well, the Qun, is the only religion I can't stand. Not because I don't like religion as well, but because I can't think for myself.  it makes me mad just thinking about it.

And, my elves characters do not believe in elven gods. They all think they were abandoned since a long time and now, they like to spit on them.

[Heimdall]

Sylvianus wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Personally, I don't care about the Chantry. It is the major religion of Thedas and has some parallels to Christianity. Some of my companions like it. Some don't. Some of my characters like it. Some don't. I have similar opinions about the elven pantheon, the old gods and the Qun.

Well, the Qun, is the only religion I can't stand. Not because I don't like religion as well, but because I can't think for myself.  it makes me mad just thinking about it.

And, my elves characters do not believe in elven gods. They all think they were abandoned since a long time and now, they like to spit on them.

Well, the Qun is more of an ideology than a religion.  I can't really stand it either...

[The dead fish]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Haha I prefer Tal Vashots, more chaotic and more interesting from the perspective where I can destroy everything for my own pleasure and not simply for the qun.

But I confess that the prospect of destroying all is lovely ! I would gladly have destroyed Kirkwall and all its inhabitants to calm everyone. But Bioware didn't allow me to do that. smilie

Ever consider playing Black and White 2? It's for the PC. You play a God and lead a tribe of people. You can be a God of War and Destruction or a God of Peace and Culture. What do you raise your people to be?

You can destroy everything if you like, or you can be as peaceful and charitable as you like, or anything in between.

Huhu, You can be also a God of peace and charitable, by destroying everything. >_>

But I would choose God of Destruction for the fun. Or rather anything between, if I'm serious. I rarely choose the ways of total peace in rpg.

[dragonflight288]

You would assign men and women to gather ore so you can make armor and weapons for your army. And then send them out to conquer the world along with your creature while you fling godly powers to help your men or hinder your enemies. (throwing fireballs at them certainly does hinder them)

[The dead fish]

dragonflight288 wrote...

You would assign men and women to gather ore so you can make armor and weapons for your army. And then send them out to conquer the world along with your creature while you fling godly powers to help your men or hinder your enemies. (throwing fireballs at them certainly does hinder them)

That's me, you understood.

Better than staying within its borders, to earn its money itself, and try to elevate itsprosperous cities without flying to the other kingdoms !

God, I am or I am not.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 05 novembre 2011 - 02:45 .

[Addai]

Lord Aesir wrote...
There was actually "English" in that time period, just no standardized spelling. 

No, that's not really so.  There was literary work being produced, and some of these dialects- Mercian/ Northumbrian- are now called Old English, but that is really a misnomer.  In early Britain you might speak any number of Germanic, Celtic or Norse dialects, and then the Normans introduced a whole new linguistic sea change.  We don't even have standardized spelling today!  What I'm talking about is much greater variation.  Even in the early texts we have, which are lumped as Old English- which are very few in number, BTW- there is variation.  Scholars can make pretty good guesses about what district an author was from based on his use of language.

The Catholic church did make little effort to translate the bible for the masses though, and indeed forbid it. 

In the Counter Reformation.  There were localized efforts to regulate unauthorized texts, but this was in a spirit to preserve the true text.  It's that same scribal discipline we can thank for transmitting the classical world to us.  So, I have a hard time condemning it.  I just think people don't understand what an oral culture is like.  Our very word "literate" is thought to mean smart, when actually we're quite weak in certain mental disciplines.

To say that the church discouraged the pursuit of knowledge would be a fallacy, but is would also be one to say the church was accepting of challenging ideas.

Well, I'll just say that this is the culture that prized dialectic in education.  The disputatio was like their Monday night football.  As long as we're clear on that, I can accept this statement.

Modifié par Addai67, 05 novembre 2011 - 03:56 .

[Heimdall]

Addai67 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
There was actually "English" in that time period, just no standardized spelling. 

No, that's not really so.  There was literary work being produced, and some of these dialects- Mercian/ Northumbrian- are now called Old English, but that is really a misnomer.  In early Britain you might speak any number of Germanic, Celtic or Norse dialects, and then the Normans introduced a whole new linguistic sea change.  We don't even have standardized spelling today!  What I'm talking about is much greater variation.  Even in the early texts we have, which are lumped as Old English- which are very few in number, BTW- there is variation.  Scholars can make pretty good guesses about what district an author was from based on his use of language.

Hence why I included quotation marks.  It seemed to me we were talking a few centuries post Normans though.  Regional variation is expected, and still prevalent today, but being similar enough to understand one another seems to make "English".  To me.  As for standardized spelling, well, it's better now than when each person just spelled things the  way they individually said them,

T.he Catholic church did make little effort to translate the bible for the masses though, and indeed forbid it. 

In the Counter Reformation.  There were localized efforts to regulate unauthorized texts, but this was in a spirit to preserve the true text.  It's that same scribal discipline we can thank for transmitting the classical world to us.  So, I have a hard time condemning it.  I just think people don't understand what an oral culture is like.  Our very word "literate" is thought to mean smart, when actually we're quite weak in certain mental disciplines.

  Preserving the true text is one plausable motive.  Of course, while they regulated they also didn't bother creating any official translations of the book themselves.  Not that this was solely a church issue, most everything written and distributed for intellectuals was in Latin.  Still, I'm not happ with the Church on that point.  The thing about an oral culture with a religion based off interpreting the meaning in a book is that it prett much meant the people just had to take the clergy's word for it.  Not that they always understood what the clergy was saying given Latin preaching, which is why the whole situation strikes me as oddly funny when I think about it.  Literate may not necesarily mean smart, but illiterate does tend to mean uneducated.

To say that the church discouraged the pursuit of knowledge would be a fallacy, but is would also be one to say the church was accepting of challenging ideas.

Well, I'll just say that this is the culture that prized dialectic in education.  The disputatio was like their Monday night football.  As long as we're clear on that, I can accept this statement.

Oh I understand that.  I'm just saying that, as an institution, the chuch was not very open to scientific ideas that challenged it's own basic ideas.  Copernicus jumps to mind.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 05 novembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[Addai]

Copernicus was a churchman himself, and was encouraged to publish his ideas by the Pope. He was later caught up in Reformation politics, including having his work finished by a Lutheran polemicist who inserted a politically motivated preface.

There were church translations- who do you think did the translations that existed? And priests were to teach people in the vernacular, even if the Liturgy itself was in Latin. The idea that the church was trying to hide the Bible from common people is ludicrous. It's polemics, pure and simple. I admire Luther- I did a year-long research project on him, and he almost single-handedly created a literary German- but he was a Catholic humanist, and there were men like him on both sides of that dispute.

The Norman era also did not have a standard literary language.  The language of court was Norman French, the countryside went on as before, and the educated class mixed all of them and went on with Latin.  You can really only say that there was a literary English as of Chaucer.  By that time it's all downhill anyway, as far as I'm concerned.  lol

Modifié par Addai67, 05 novembre 2011 - 07:18 .