299 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Icesong wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

If one is to assume that Thedas is based on the Middle Ages or a time period around that time then the espousal of atheistic views was rare and hazardous to a person's well being. The person would be viewed as a heretic.

In game terms this would mean that certain companions should not be seen in the present of one who advocates those views such as Sebastian or Merrill (guilt by association). Sebastian has a firm belief in the Maker and Merrill in the Creators. Also certain quests should be unavailable like Faith.

Also Hawke would be subject to ridicule and possible attack for acknowledging his/her lack of belief in the maker.

I look back to DAO and bits of DA2 and find this argument unpersuasive.

That statement requires elaboration. What bits are you referencing?

DAO I'm referencing The Warden, Morrigan and various others heretics that walked around Ferelden without being attacked. DA2 -- I'll get back to you after I play through it again to be sure the parts I'm remembering are accurate. At the least Hawke getting away with being a apostate/blood mage in Kirkwall is an example of heretic behavior.

You did note in my post I said should not. As far as the games thelselves that I cannot change. That is how the writers chose to write it. Wynne objects to blood mages and blood magic but not a peep is heard when you make her one. That gets into another area of player agency. Bioware could have simply made blood mage unavailable to Wynne, but they did not. Bioware could have made Leliaana leave the minute the Warden expresses disbelief in the Maker. Bioware did not do that.

Because that becomes a gameplay and player agency problem. In my post I was talking about what should have happened. If my Hawke speaks against the Maker and Chantry why would Sebastian roll with my Hawke? If I deny the Creators why would Merrill accompany my Hawke?

For gameplay purposes certain aspects are suspended. Gamers want to be able to put any companion in their party. Note that Sebastian will not accompany your party into the Fade saying it is not the place for a man of faith. 

So the writers did do it in DA2. They chose not to do it in DAo and other parts of DA2.

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...
There is no such thing as atheism in Thedas. Not sure why someone thinks it was an option in DAO-- possibly it's the same kind of interpretation as them thinking Hawke was "forced" into being a devout believer. Either way, it's not really an option we intend to include.

Holy carp that shatters about half of my remaining positive experience with my first playthrough of DA:O.

Just when I thought BioWare couldn't take anymore enjoyment away from that game for me.

[Abispa]

The series has introduced plenty of characters into the game with widely different religious beliefs. Rather than a clear cut "atheist" option or statement, I would be happy if there were options that allowed my character to agree or disagree with them. I had no problem role-playing an atheist or agnostic Hawke. I just want options to reacted to each character and situation as they came up.

[WotanAnubis]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Because that becomes a gameplay and player agency problem. In my post I was talking about what should have happened. If my Hawke speaks against the Maker and Chantry why would Sebastian roll with my Hawke? If I deny the Creators why would Merrill accompany my Hawke?

Are you suggesting Hawke ever tells Merrill s/he believes in the Creators? I must have missed that dialogue option.

Anyway, the argument is silly. Though Sebastian's faith is important to him, people of different religious convictions and, indeed no religious convictions can hang out together quite happily. There is no reason Sebastian can't tag along with Hawke just because Hawke's faith is different/weaker. Religion need not be an insurmountable rift. People can have things in common besides their faith. People can accompany one another for reasons that are not religious.

[Reznore57]

Atheism is complicated cause it can mean a lot of different position.
In buddhism , there are deities , but they're not the main focus .
If i remember correctly some buddhist aknowledge the fact that gods are just "images " that help faith.
They didn't dismiss their existences , like if you need them to exist ,so be it.

[withneelandi]

I'm not quite sure what to make of the warden, the urn of sacred ashes and the dragon blood in Origns.

I always thought that was just about not believing in the maker and thus not being too worried about the fate of the ashes, are we supposed to assume that they believed the cultists story about the Dragon and did what they did out of their inherant belief in the maker? Thats defnately not the implication I got when playing origins.

The more I think about it, the more odd it gets. I totally get that for whatever reason Bioware don't want specifically athiest dialogue options for the PC in future games. In the grand scheme of things its a bit of a non issue for me, and I can also see why it might be a can of worms they don't want to open but the implication that we've all been imposing any concept of it on the existing games seems .... odd.

There are definite points in Origins where the PC's belief or not in the maker came up, and at the very least dialogue between party members in Da2 about whether certain characters believed in the maker.

I feel that the implication here is that we are imposing athiesm on the story, when i'm pretty certain its quite clearly an element that is present in the game.

I mean, if one party member can ask an other "do you belive in the maker?" is it so crazy for us to think that the central caracter might not? It totally wouldn't be a big deal, except I feel like i'm being told i'm imagining bits of games, which if true is a ..... worrying sign for me at best.

[Wulfram]

Most of the Origins dialogue that was available to a human PC was fairly ambiguous as to whether the PC was actually an atheist, or just didn't have much time for the chantry, or didn't fancy praying right now, or just though Leliana was a loon for thinking the Maker had talked to her personally or whatever.

Though I am alos pretty sure that it did avoid requiring any positive statements of belief on the part of the Warden.  As, actually, did DA2 aside from a few bits of stuff in Diplomatic Hawke's combat sound set.

The bit in the HN noble I quoted earlier stuck out because it was so unambiguous. And probably because I think I remember having this discussion with Mr Gaider back on the old forums before Origins was released.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:18 .

[Abispa]

It's obvious that there are options in both games to deny the Maker and the Chantry, there just isn't an option that says that there is NO supernatural forces (God, gods, Providence, Fate, Luck) that governs or influences the characters' lives.

[Ellestor]

David Gaider wrote...

There is no such thing as atheism in Thedas.

I seem to recall you stating more than once on the old pre-BSN Dragon Age fora that gods are not explicitly extant or absent (thus maintaining the notion of having faith in a god, which you considered absent from settings like the Forgotten Realms), thereby allowing beliefs to vary as they do on Earth, but here you seem to be saying that non-faith just doesn't happen for some reason. What sorcery is this?

David Gaider wrote...

It's not a common thing.

But that's quite another statement...

I wouldn't expect it to be a common thing in an effectively medieval society, but it's evidently at least common enough to show us a bunch of it. Morrigan had a positive belief in neither the Maker nor apparently any other deific figure, the qunari apparently have no deity, and a good handful of scattered NPCs are openly skeptical of the Maker without evidently having some other theistic belief.

You say nothing's changed, so I wonder then what you actually mean by there being ‘no such thing as atheism in Thedas’. I can only assume, given all the examples of atheistic characters, that you are for some reason thinking of it as something more than not having a belief in a deity. Or I guess you might have meant in the first place that it's just not common enough, too improbable a character trait to spend dialogue zots on.

Modifié par Ellestor, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:39 .

[David Gaider]

Ellestor wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

There is no such thing as atheism in Thedas.

I seem to recall you stating more than once on the old pre-BSN Dragon Age fora that gods are not explicitly extant or absent (thus maintaining the notion of having faith in a god, which you considered absent from settings like the Forgotten Realms), thereby allowing beliefs to vary as they do on Earth, but here you seem to be saying that non-faith just doesn't happen for some reason. What sorcery is this?

David Gaider wrote...

It's not a common thing.

But that's quite another statement...

I wouldn't expect it to be a common thing in an effectively medieval society, but it's at least common enough to show us a bunch of it. Morrigan had a positive belief in neither the Maker nor apparently any other deific figure, the qunari apparently have no deity, and a good handful of scattered NPCs are openly skeptical of the Maker (even aside from the Dalish and qunari).

You say nothing's changed, so I wonder then what you actually mean by there being ‘no such thing as atheism in Thedas’. I can only assume, given all the examples of atheistic characters, that you are for some reason thinking of it as something more than not having a belief in a deity.

This is the point where I rub my temples and wonder why I even bothered at all.

There was no "proof" of God, and yet in medieval Europe the fact that He existed was beyond question. A given person might hate Him or reject Him, but that does not mean He didn't exist. Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

This is also the case in Thedas. And the idea of getting into a discussion of what Morrigan or the Qunari is irrelevant in the context of how it should impact the player-- which, from the perspective of the writing team, is not at all. It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer, though we also don't go out of our way to do the opposite either, and we've no intention of changing that.

And that's where I'm going to leave it. If someone wants to take this as "but this was clearly a theme of the entire story whether you meant it or not and if you are changing that approach even though you just said you weren't then CLEARLY ALL IS LOST"... well, knock yourselves out. 

[Icesong]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

If one is to assume that Thedas is based on the Middle Ages or a time period around that time then the espousal of atheistic views was rare and hazardous to a person's well being. The person would be viewed as a heretic.

In game terms this would mean that certain companions should not be seen in the present of one who advocates those views such as Sebastian or Merrill (guilt by association). Sebastian has a firm belief in the Maker and Merrill in the Creators. Also certain quests should be unavailable like Faith.

Also Hawke would be subject to ridicule and possible attack for acknowledging his/her lack of belief in the maker.

I look back to DAO and bits of DA2 and find this argument unpersuasive.

That statement requires elaboration. What bits are you referencing?

DAO I'm referencing The Warden, Morrigan and various others heretics that walked around Ferelden without being attacked. DA2 -- I'll get back to you after I play through it again to be sure the parts I'm remembering are accurate. At the least Hawke getting away with being a apostate/blood mage in Kirkwall is an example of heretic behavior.

You did note in my post I said should not. As far as the games thelselves that I cannot change. That is how the writers chose to write it. Wynne objects to blood mages and blood magic but not a peep is heard when you make her one. That gets into another area of player agency. Bioware could have simply made blood mage unavailable to Wynne, but they did not.

And because they didn't we can craft own our stories about Wynne changing her beliefs. But I'm not really arguing about that. I know what you're saying and I agree with you about that aspect. The rest I'm struggling to understand.

In my post I was talking about what should have happened. If my Hawke speaks against the Maker and Chantry why would Sebastian roll with my Hawke? If I deny the Creators why would Merrill accompany my Hawke?

People leaving the second a contrary opinion is presented? I'm trying to picture how the Fellowship would have functioned with this mindset. Or, you know, the Gray Wardens.

What happened in DAO is how these things should happen. Morrigan and Leliana have conflicting world views. They argue about it and then move on to keep working towards a larger goal. If something extremely egregious occurs, such as defiling the Ashes or the Sebastian dilemma, that's when walking away becomes realistic.

Leliana, in particular, not only doesn't walk away from you if you don't believe in the Maker, but lets you break down her faith and will even fall in love with you. Plus it's not as if your faith or lack thereof changes why she's with you in the first place; which is her own faith.

You keep referencing DA2 which is an easier case for you to make. There's no binding element that keeps them all together, no heroic journey. You're saying it's the convenience of gameplay that would keep them together, I think it's the power of friendship. I don't know how friendships would have worked in the Middle Ages but I know how they work in fantasy settings and disparate people coming together in camaraderie is fantasy 101.

[Ellestor]

David Gaider wrote...

This is the point where I rub my temples and wonder why I even bothered at all.

Sorry, man. Just trying to understand, as the pieces weren't coming together for me.

David Gaider wrote...

There was no "proof" of God, and yet in medieval Europe the fact that He existed was beyond question. A given person might hate Him or reject Him, but that does not mean He didn't exist. Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

Right, I was acknowledging that, I think, just trying to square that with the ‘doesn't exist’ thing and the examples of apparently atheistic characters and belief systems.

Of course, medieval Europe was quite different from earlier Europe in this regard, with recorded examples of atheism since at least 5th century BCE Greece, albeit this was probably something only philosophers cared to consider. Maybe it was a similar level of a thing in Elvhenan, much to the later surprise of the Dalish? But now I'm backseat writing.

Also, atheism wouldn't necessarily be ‘the Maker doesn't exist’, but ‘I don't have a belief that the Maker exists’.

Also also, homosexuality wasn't ‘a thing’ in a similar sense (no activism, heavily persecuted), but there were certainly homosexual people, and we have options to that effect. But anyway...

David Gaider wrote... 

This is also the case in Thedas. And the idea of getting into a discussion of what Morrigan or the Qunari is irrelevant in the context of how it should impact the player-- which, from the perspective of the writing team, is not at all. It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer, though we also don't go out of our way to do the opposite either, and we've no intention of changing that.

That's cool. I was less concerned with the options given the player and more with the idea that it just wasn't possible in the context of the world. But if it was basically shorthand for ‘it is infinitesimally improbable that someone in the Warden's position, or Hawke's, wouldn't have a positive belief in some god’, then sweet.

Modifié par Ellestor, 09 juillet 2012 - 10:12 .

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...
There was no "proof" of God, and yet in medieval Europe the fact that He existed was beyond question. A given person might hate Him or reject Him, but that does not mean He didn't exist. Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

This is also the case in Thedas. And the idea of getting into a discussion of what Morrigan or the Qunari is irrelevant in the context of how it should impact the player-- which, from the perspective of the writing team, is not at all. It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer, though we also don't go out of our way to do the opposite either, and we've no intention of changing that.

Hyperbolic on the "beyond question" line there (Critias, Euhemerus and up on to any Christian philosopher worth his salt in a debate in the Middle Ages would disagree that belief was beyond question - history is kinda my thing, specifically religious history), but this is closer to what I thought the game was.

Chalk it up to my imperfect interpretation of the game, but when I played it I thought the game was making it vague and unclear as to whether Andraste was merely a person or really a supernatural figure, on whether the maker was real at all, really a god if he ever existed, etc.  Every point of disbelieve about whether elves ever had more magic or longer lives, about what "really" created the darkspawn...

a large portion of my love of DA:O was the ambiguity of the world.  I thought it was, at worst, being left unanswered but to be revealed in later games, OR, at best, that these would remain questions of faith and not truth.

So it's at least, at the very least, partially my fault for becoming enamored with the game for something you still seem to be saying it was never meant to be.

Doesn't make the realization any less devastating, personally... on an "attachement to a piece of entertainment" level, at least.

[WotanAnubis]

David Gaider wrote...

This is the point where I rub my temples and wonder why I even bothered at all.

Because Death of the Author annoys you? 

David Gaider wrote...

There was no "proof" of God, and yet in medieval Europe the fact that He existed was beyond question. A given person might hate Him or reject Him, but that does not mean He didn't exist. Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

This is also the case in Thedas. And the idea of getting into a discussion of what Morrigan or the Qunari is irrelevant in the context of how it should impact the player-- which, from the perspective of the writing team, is not at all. It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer, though we also don't go out of our way to do the opposite either, and we've no intention of changing that.

It's totally relevent. It's what makes Thedas not medieval Europe (apart from all the magic and elves and dragons and things). The Catholic Church was pretty much the only authority on all things religious. Yeah, there were the Muslims in Southern Spain, but Islam was not particularly wide-spread outside of it.

So, in medieval Europe, everybody everywhere only ever heard the Truth of the Catholic Church and had little reason not accept it (and if they didn't accept the Church's stance... well, we all know what happened to the Cathars, don't we?).

The Chantry, on the other hand, is not the sole religious authority. Human lands trade with the ancestor-worshipping dwarves, the Dalish routinely treck through the human wilderness and everybody apparently knows about the Qunari. Also, the Chantry isn't that big on burning heretics.

As such, the position that the Maker certainly exists and is the only God around is not one that goes unchallenged. And when ideas are challenged, sometimes, people tend to think about them.

So to argue that religion in Thedas is on the same level as reglion in medieval Europe seems... well... kind of silly. The Chantry might be everywhere, but at least they don't burn priests for daring to suggest there may be life on the stars. Allistair is happily suggests that the Chantry's claims and reality are seldom the same and Aveline, Captain of the Guard in the City of Templars, is entirely comfortable suggesting that perhaps the Chant of Light is lovely but nothing more than that.

In short, there don't seem to be many barriers to questioning in Thedas (also, literacy rates appear to be reasonably high and there are quite a few books to read). And questioning doesn't always lead one towards faith.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer

We shouldn't be limited to the viewpoints you offer.  That's kind of been my whole point for the last 2 years.

[Icesong]

David Gaider wrote...
Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

"Exceptional individuals", you say? Might we call them "heroes"? "Player characters", as it were?

It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer

Besides that time that you did.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Wynne objects to blood mages and blood magic but not a peep is heard when you make her one.

Nothing wrong with that.  She could have been being disingenuous, or hypocritical, or simply had an honest belief that you need to fight fire with fire.

[King Cousland]

David Gaider wrote...

Ellestor wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

There is no such thing as atheism in Thedas.

I seem to recall you stating more than once on the old pre-BSN Dragon Age fora that gods are not explicitly extant or absent (thus maintaining the notion of having faith in a god, which you considered absent from settings like the Forgotten Realms), thereby allowing beliefs to vary as they do on Earth, but here you seem to be saying that non-faith just doesn't happen for some reason. What sorcery is this?

David Gaider wrote...

It's not a common thing.

But that's quite another statement...

I wouldn't expect it to be a common thing in an effectively medieval society, but it's at least common enough to show us a bunch of it. Morrigan had a positive belief in neither the Maker nor apparently any other deific figure, the qunari apparently have no deity, and a good handful of scattered NPCs are openly skeptical of the Maker (even aside from the Dalish and qunari).

You say nothing's changed, so I wonder then what you actually mean by there being ‘no such thing as atheism in Thedas’. I can only assume, given all the examples of atheistic characters, that you are for some reason thinking of it as something more than not having a belief in a deity.

This is the point where I rub my temples and wonder why I even bothered at all.

There was no "proof" of God, and yet in medieval Europe the fact that He existed was beyond question. A given person might hate Him or reject Him, but that does not mean He didn't exist. Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

This is also the case in Thedas. And the idea of getting into a discussion of what Morrigan or the Qunari is irrelevant in the context of how it should impact the player-- which, from the perspective of the writing team, is not at all. It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer, though we also don't go out of our way to do the opposite either, and we've no intention of changing that.

And that's where I'm going to leave it. If someone wants to take this as "but this was clearly a theme of the entire story whether you meant it or not and if you are changing that approach even though you just said you weren't then CLEARLY ALL IS LOST"... well, knock yourselves out. 

Sorry to drag this on, but why are you so insistent about making the large absence of atheism such an unshakeable truth in Thedas when your justification is essentially that it is based on medieval Europe, and atheism did not really exist then and there either? I'm not refuting that point, but if you're so insistent about it why aren't you equally insistent about illiteracy among commoners, attitudes towards homosexuality (to be clear I personally have no problem and support how non-hetrosexual relationships are portrayed in DA), skin colour (again, no problem and support) etc. It just seems like a double standard, and a very odd one at that. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Probably because they could say things like "I've told you before I don't believe in the Maker" in the HN origin

If that was in there, then so be it. There wasn't intended to be an option to express atheism. And there certainly won't be again.

Strictly speaking, the ability to express atheism is not the same as the ability to be an atheist.

One could be an atheist without expressing atheism, and one could express atheism without being an atheist.

As long as you don't force us to play a devout believer, I'm fine with it, regardless of what expression options are available.

[Sylvius the Mad]

harkness72 wrote...

Sorry to drag this on, but why are you so insistent about making the large absence of atheism such an unshakeable truth in Thedas when your justification is essentially that it is based on medieval Europe, and atheism did not really exist then and there either? I'm not refuting that point, but if you're so insistent about it why aren't you equally insistent about illiteracy among commoners, attitudes towards homosexuality (to be clear I personally have no problem and support how non-hetrosexual relationships are portrayed in DA), skin colour (again, no problem and support) etc. It just seems like a double standard, and a very odd one at that. 

He's not justifying it on those grounds; he's defending it on those grounds.  David points to Europe as evidence of a society that didn't really have atheism as a possible option.  Since that doesn't make medieval Europe an untenable setting, nor does it make Thedas an untenable setting.

But he is not claiming that he must do it because that is what Europe was like.  You're responding as if David is claiming some sort of necessary connection between Europe and Thedas, and he's doing nothing of the sort.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 09 juillet 2012 - 10:40 .

[King Cousland]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

Sorry to drag this on, but why are you so insistent about making the large absence of atheism such an unshakeable truth in Thedas when your justification is essentially that it is based on medieval Europe, and atheism did not really exist then and there either? I'm not refuting that point, but if you're so insistent about it why aren't you equally insistent about illiteracy among commoners, attitudes towards homosexuality (to be clear I personally have no problem and support how non-hetrosexual relationships are portrayed in DA), skin colour (again, no problem and support) etc. It just seems like a double standard, and a very odd one at that. 

he's not justifying on those grounds, he's defending it on those grounds.  David points to Europe as evidence of a society that didn't really have atheism as a possible option.  Since that doesn't make medieval Europe an untenable setting, nor does it make Thedas an untenable setting.

But he is not claiming that he must do it because that is what Europe was like.  You're responding as if David is claiming some sort of necessary connection between Europe and Thedas, and he's doing nothing of the sort.

In which case I misinterpreted his  comment.

[Cimeas]

WotanAnubis wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

This is the point where I rub my temples and wonder why I even bothered at all.

Because Death of the Author annoys you? 

David Gaider wrote...

There was no "proof" of God, and yet in medieval Europe the fact that He existed was beyond question. A given person might hate Him or reject Him, but that does not mean He didn't exist. Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

This is also the case in Thedas. And the idea of getting into a discussion of what Morrigan or the Qunari is irrelevant in the context of how it should impact the player-- which, from the perspective of the writing team, is not at all. It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer, though we also don't go out of our way to do the opposite either, and we've no intention of changing that.

It's totally relevent. It's what makes Thedas not medieval Europe (apart from all the magic and elves and dragons and things). The Catholic Church was pretty much the only authority on all things religious. Yeah, there were the Muslims in Southern Spain, but Islam was not particularly wide-spread outside of it.

So, in medieval Europe, everybody everywhere only ever heard the Truth of the Catholic Church and had little reason not accept it (and if they didn't accept the Church's stance... well, we all know what happened to the Cathars, don't we?).

The Chantry, on the other hand, is not the sole religious authority. Human lands trade with the ancestor-worshipping dwarves, the Dalish routinely treck through the human wilderness and everybody apparently knows about the Qunari. Also, the Chantry isn't that big on burning heretics.

As such, the position that the Maker certainly exists and is the only God around is not one that goes unchallenged. And when ideas are challenged, sometimes, people tend to think about them.

So to argue that religion in Thedas is on the same level as reglion in medieval Europe seems... well... kind of silly. The Chantry might be everywhere, but at least they don't burn priests for daring to suggest there may be life on the stars. Allistair is happily suggests that the Chantry's claims and reality are seldom the same and Aveline, Captain of the Guard in the City of Templars, is entirely comfortable suggesting that perhaps the Chant of Light is lovely but nothing more than that.

In short, there don't seem to be many barriers to questioning in Thedas (also, literacy rates appear to be reasonably high and there are quite a few books to read). And questioning doesn't always lead one towards faith.

Well Thedas is a mash up of various centuries of medieval Europe and multiple cultures are sort of embedded in that.  For example the alienages are sort of like the Ghettoes where jewish people were forced to live in the 1400s and 1500s in Europe, and they were only allowed to do the worst jobs.   But the Dwarves on the other hand aren't based in old Europe, but are more just a classic fantasy idea that they decided to use.   

[Dave of Canada]

Oh boy, this isn't going to be taken well considering the religion hate on these boards.

Edit:

Unless your character was in a position which they'd be able to study theology, dogma would probably dictate your character's life throughout their entire childhood and beyond--they may not be overly religious, though to claim that your character is completely an athiest (in the sense that thugs may laugh in a priest's faice but the idea of the Maker and the Golden City is still burned into their mind) in such a setting shows your real world opinion influencing your character far too much.

Morrigan was who she was because she wasn't raised with other people, her opinions mostly derive from Flemeth's influence--perhaps she has a different faith that she never mentions, we just know she looks down on the Chantry. Perhaps the option to not believe in the Maker would be presented when your protagonist isn't raised in a chantry-controlled nation.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:21 .

[withneelandi]

MerinTB wrote...

Chalk it up to my imperfect interpretation of the game, but when I played it I thought the game was making it vague and unclear as to whether Andraste was merely a person or really a supernatural figure, on whether the maker was real at all, really a god if he ever existed, etc.  Every point of disbelieve about whether elves ever had more magic or longer lives, about what "really" created the darkspawn...

a large portion of my love of DA:O was the ambiguity of the world.  I thought it was, at worst, being left unanswered but to be revealed in later games, OR, at best, that these would remain questions of faith and not truth.

So it's at least, at the very least, partially my fault for becoming enamored with the game for something you still seem to be saying it was never meant to be.

Doesn't make the realization any less devastating, personally... on an "attachement to a piece of entertainment" level, at least.

I think this gets close to expressing why I found David Gaiders comments earlier in the threat so surprising.

I going back a couple of years I had well and truly fallen out of love with video games, and was of the belief that modern games were pretty dull, all graphical flair and no substance, but I bought an X-box 360 because my dvd player broke needed replaced an xbox wasn't much more expensive and I was sick of getting hammered at Fifa soccer over a few beers with my mates.

I happened to borrow Origins from a friend and it single handedly changed my perspective on modern games, here was a game that did something I had never seen before and used the medium to present the sort of open ended narrative that I had literally never encountered before.

I think the flexible narrative Origins creates is a superb achievment, not just from a video games perspective but simply as a feat of story telling where the author(s) creates a rich world with a baffling amount of possible options and narrative threads that mean that each person experiences a different story and can see that story from different perspectives each time they start it.

That is actually very important, and I know my old English lit profs would have kittens discussing its implications (I'd love to see one paticular lecturer try and pull off a semiotic analysis of origins). In dragon age you don't just get to see "your" story you can see dozens of versions of it.

Not only that but the nature of the world felt wonderfully open ended, even in the part of the game where the story of Andraste is presented as near historical fact a throw away line from Ogren can throw doubt on the apparant certainty, everything seemed left up to the player to process and interpret and I honestly thought that was by design.

The comments a few pages back seem to imply that some of the things that made Origins (and to a lesser but still significant extent Da2 ) a truly amazing piece of fiction, not just a great video game, but a interesting, important piece of story telling were more by accident than design.

I don't believe that to be the case, I don't think you can achieve what they did in origins by stumbling onto the formula for success but I do worry that DG is distancing himself from what made the game special.

Plenty of developers make fantasy RPG's, cinematic video games or such like but no one else got the balance between telling the player a story and letter the player tell the story as well as Bioware did in origins.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Icesong wrote...

But it's no secret I despise the paraphrases system for putting words into your PC's mouth like this. About all I can do is "I substitute the game's interpretation of what Hawke says for what I say she says," because it looks like the system aint gonna change.

I share your loathing. Can't say how many times you would have found me shaking my fist at the screen while screeching "That's not what I meant at allllll!!!".

Indeed. One of my favourites was telling Anders "Mages deserve their freedom." (paraphrase: "It was the right thing to do." context: defending the mages against the templars) when my PC didn't believe in mage freedom at all, and simply wanted to prevent wholesale slaughter. Came out of that dialogue wanting to punch Anders int he face (not for the first time).

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Probably because they could say things like "I've told you before I don't believe in the Maker" in the HN origin

If that was in there, then so be it. There wasn't intended to be an option to express atheism. And there certainly won't be again.

Curious. Why there's opposition to such an innocuous RP concept is beyond me. Morrigan's banter with Leliana alone is enough to suggest some people do express disbelief in the Maker, if not true athiesm.

• Leliana: I'm wondering Morrigan... do you believe in the Maker?
• Morrigan: Certainly not. I've no primitive fear of the moon such that I must place my faith in tales so that I may sleep at night.

• Leliana: So you truly do not believe in any sort of higher power?
• Morrigan: It has been bothering you, I see. No, I do not. Must I?

I suppose she could believe in something else, no matter what she says, but a shame the PC is not permitted to hold similar views simply, no matter how he was raised.